Skip to content


Venkoba Rao Vs. S. Muthu Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ88
AppellantVenkoba Rao
RespondentS. Muthu Aiyar
Cases ReferredDamedar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....is whether the suit is cognizable by a court of small causes. the plaint begins by describing the suit as a suit for the value of paddy wrongfully carried away by the defendant. it then goes on to state that certain land had been hypothecated to the plaintiff in 1896 by one a. kilakodayan, and afterwards sold by the latter to the defendant; that the plaintiff got a decree on the hypothecation bond, purchased the land in execution and got delivery on the 19th november 1905; that at the time there were crops on the land which had been raised by the defendant; and that the defendant though entitled to only one-sixth of the crops as waram, wrongfully reaped and carried away the whole produce. the suit as brought is, in my opinion, exempted from the cognizance of a court of small causes.....
Judgment:

Munro, J.

1. The question for determination is whether the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The plaint begins by describing the suit as a suit for the value of paddy wrongfully carried away by the defendant. It then goes on to state that certain land had been hypothecated to the plaintiff in 1896 by one A. Kilakodayan, and afterwards sold by the latter to the defendant; that the plaintiff got a decree on the hypothecation bond, purchased the land in execution and got delivery on the 19th November 1905; that at the time there were crops on the land which had been raised by the defendant; and that the defendant though entitled to only one-sixth of the crops as waram, wrongfully reaped and carried away the whole produce. The suit as brought is, in my opinion, exempted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under Section 31 of the Second Schedule of Act IX of 1887, being a suit for the profits of immovable property, belonging, to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant; vide Damedar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve I.L.R. (1892) B. 42 where it is pointed out that when a plaintiff alleges that the defendant has wrongfully received the plaintiff's share of profits, the suit falls under Section 31. I therefore set aside all the proceedings in this suit and direct that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court. No costs are allowed as the defendant should have appeared and pressed the objection in the Court below.


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