Skip to content


Annamalai Vs. Subramanyan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad298
AppellantAnnamalai
RespondentSubramanyan
Cases ReferredSriram Samanta v. Kalidas Dey I.L.R.
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act - act ix of 1887, schedule ii, clause 31--suit for profits of land--civil procedure code, section 586. - .....of the code of civil procedure, 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. it is argued for appellant that the case falls within clause 31 of schedule ii of the provincial small cause courts act ix of 1887, and that the suit was therefore, not cognizable by a court of small causes. the question is. what was the nature of the suit as orginally tiled, and, in our opinion, this suit, in its inception, was not a suit for the profits of immoveable property within the meaning of clause 31 of schedule ii of act ix of 1887. this suit is in effect brought to recover the value of crops alleged to have been illegally carried away by defendant while plaintiff was in possession. this is.....
Judgment:

1. The preliminary objection is taken on behalf of respondent that no second appeal lies under Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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. It is argued for appellant that the case falls within clause 31 of schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act IX of 1887, and that the suit was therefore, not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The question is. what was the nature of the suit as orginally tiled, and, in our opinion, this suit, in its inception, was not a suit for the profits of immoveable property within the meaning of clause 31 of schedule II of Act IX of 1887. This suit is in effect brought to recover the value of crops alleged to have been illegally carried away by defendant while plaintiff was in possession. This is not a suit, in our opinion, exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court by clause 31, 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 investigation of the suit, it appeared that defendant, in carrying off the crops, was acting under colour of some claim of title to the land.

2. We agree generally with the principles laid down in Krishna Prosad Nag v. Maizuddin Biswas I.L.R. 17 Cal. 707 the authority of which is not shaken by the decision in Sriram Samanta v. Kalidas Dey I.L.R. 18 Cal. 316.

3. The second appeal must be dismissed with costs.

4. The memorandum of objections also must be dismissed with costs.


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