1. In my opinion the nature of the suit must be ascertained by considering all the allegations in the plaint and the prayer.
2. In the present plaint a muchalka is alleged to have been executed by the first defendant, and the second defendant is said to be in possession. There are no other allegations made.
3. Then there is the prayer as for the enforcement of a charge. There is nothing in the allegations to justify such a prayer. I therefore think that the plaint must be read simply as a plaint for the enforcement of the terms of the muchalka, and that the suit is therefore of a small cause nature.
4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.
5. If the question were res integra, I should be inclined to hold that in determining whether or not a second appeal is barred by Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code, we ought to regard the suit not as it ought to have been framed but as it is in fact framed and brought, unless the plaintiff has, with the object of evading the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes and bringing the suit in the ordinary Courts, added a claim for a relief to which he knows he is not in law entitled. But following the decisions of this Court in Mullapudi Balakrishnayya v. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rau I.L.R. 19 Mad. 329 and the decision in Padmavathemma v. Venkatagiri Rajah Second Appeal No. 593 of 1899 (unreported). The Judgment, which was delivered by Subrahmania Ayyar and Davies, JJ., on 2nd November 1900, is as follows: 'Upon the finding that these cesses have been paid as part of the rent, they do not fall within Clause (18) of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. They ate therefore rents just as the jodi is, and according to the recent Full Bench ruling in Soundaram Ayyar v. Sennia Naickan I.L.R. 547 all suits for rent are of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The amount here being under Rs. 500, no second appeal lies. The fact that the plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to recover the jodi, etc., on the liability of the land does not alter the nature of the suit in a case like this see Mullapudi Balakrishnayya v. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rau I.L.R. 19 Mad. 329. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed, but without costs. I concur in dismissing the second appeal with costs.