1. The only point for decision is whether the suit is exempted from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court by reason of Article 31 of Schedule II of Act IX of 1887.
2. From the plaint it seems to me that the suit must be regarded as one for damages for a single act of trespass, the said damages being measured by the landlord's share of the standing crop to which the plaintiffs were entitled and which the defendants carried away. It is not denied that the plaintiffs were in possession (under a Razinama decree) prior to the trespass and there is no allegation that the defendants remained in possession at the time of suit.
3. On this view I consider the case to be similar to that dealt with in Annamalai v. Subramania Iyer I.L.R. (1892) M. 298 and the suit to be cognizable by a Small Cause Court. I do not find anything in Savirimuthu v. Aithurusee Rowther I.L.R. (1901) 25 M. 103 incompatible with this. The 1st respondent's vakil refers me to the case of Venkoba Rao v. Muthu Iyer : (1908)18MLJ88 . I do not see how that case can be distinguished from the present one; but with great respect to the learned judge who decided it, I think the decision of a Division Bench in Annamalai v. Subramania Iyer I.L.R. (1892) M. 298 must be followed in preference. The latter is, moreover, in accordance with my own view of the true meaning of Article 31. The case quoted in M.L.J. ruling Damodar Gopal Diashib v. Chintaman Balakrishna Karve I.L.R. (1892) B. 42 has no bearing on the present question.
4. The Subordinate Judge will be directed to receive the plaint on the small cause side and dispose of it according to law. The costs will abide the result.