Skip to content


Annamalai Chetti Vs. Subramanian Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)2MLJ15
AppellantAnnamalai Chetti
RespondentSubramanian Chetti
Cases ReferredBamanta v. Kalidas Vey I. L. R.
Excerpt:
- .....586 of the civil procedure code, as the value of the suit does not exceed rs. 500, and it is of a nature cognizable by a court of small causes, and we think the objection must prevail.2. it is argued for the appellant that the case falls within clause 31 of sched. ii of the provincial small cause court's act ix of 1887, and that the suit is therefore not cognizable by a court of small causes.3. the question is what is the nature of the suit as originally filed, and in our opinion the suit in its inception was not a suit for the profits of immovable property, within the meaning of clause 31 of sched. ii of act ix of 1887. this suit is in effect brought to recover the value of the crops alleged to have been illegally carried away see the secretary of state v. r. fischer 1 m. l. j. 166. by.....
Judgment:

1. The preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal lies under Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the value of the suit does not exceed Rs. 500, and it is of a nature cognizable by a court of small causes, and we think the objection must prevail.

2. It is argued for the appellant that the case falls within Clause 31 of Sched. II of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act IX of 1887, and that the suit is therefore not cognizable by a court of small causes.

3. The question is what is the nature of the suit as originally filed, and in our opinion the suit in its inception was not a suit for the profits of immovable property, within the meaning of Clause 31 of Sched. II of Act IX of 1887. This Suit is in effect brought to recover the value of the crops alleged to have been illegally carried away See The Secretary of State v. R. Fischer 1 M. L. J. 166. by defendant while plaintiff was in possession. This is not a snit in our opinion exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court by 01. 31 of Sched. II of Act IX of 1887. The suit was therefore of a nature cognizable by a court of small causes within the meaning of Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code and no second appeal lies. And it makes no difference that in the course of the investigation of the suit, it appeared that defendants in carrying off the crops were acting under color of title to the land.

4. We agree generally with the principles laid down in Krishna Prosad Nag v. Maizuddin Biswas I. L. R. 17 C 707, the authority of which is not shaken by the decision reported in Sriram, Bamanta v. Kalidas Vey I. L. R. 18 C 316.

5. The second appeal must be dismissed with costs. The memo, of objections also must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //