Skip to content


Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Sitaramayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad118
AppellantSubba Rao and anr.
RespondentSitaramayya
Cases ReferredSeshagiri Ayyar v. Marakathammal I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 586--suit of a nature cognizable in a court of small causes--suit for mesne profits--second appeal--provincial small cause courts act--act ix of 1887, schedule ii, article 31. - .....between the plaintiffs and the defendant. the defendant was a trespasser and the claim was one for mesne profits. it has been urged on behalf of the appellants that it appears from the claim itself that the mesne profits cannot be ascertained without the taking of an account, and it is sought to distinguish this case from seshagiri ayyar v. marakathammal i.l.r. 22 mad. 196. where it was held, following a full bench decision of the calcutta high court, that a suit for mesne profits is cognizable by a court of small causes. in a sense, no doubt, every claim for mesne profits involves the taking of an account, but a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for an account, but a suit for damages, and is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the small cause courts under article 31 of the second.....
Judgment:

1. The defendant's tenancy terminated in 1891. When this suit was brought there was no relation of landlord and tenant subsisting between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant was a trespasser and the claim was one for mesne profits. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that it appears from the claim itself that the mesne profits cannot be ascertained without the taking of an account, and it is sought to distinguish this case from Seshagiri Ayyar v. Marakathammal I.L.R. 22 Mad. 196. where it was held, following a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, that a suit for mesne profits is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. In a sense, no doubt, every claim for mesne profits involves the taking of an account, but a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for an account, but a suit for damages, and is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts under Article 31 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. We think that the suit was a suit of a nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes and that the preliminary objection should be upheld.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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