1. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies in this case, as the suit is of a small cause nature and the amount sought to be recovered in the Court of first instance was less than Rs. 500. This objection must be upheld. The appellant contends that the suit might be treated as one for an account. But we find that it cannot be on a reference to the plaint. The plaint states that Mukamma had money dealings with the plaintiff for the benefit, expenses and trade of the family. These are to be found in the account-books properly maintained by the plaintiff and the prayer is that a decree be passed for the amount due. The plaintiff does not ask that any of the defendants should be made to account to the plaintiff. The suit is not, therefore, one for an account. Article 31 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act applies to cases where the relationship of the parties is such that one of them is bound to render accounts to the other. This is substantially what is laid down in Konduru Ranga Reddi v. Subbiah Setty 28 M.P 394 Mr. Kuppuswamy Aiyar, the learned Vakil for the appellants, argues that the defendants, had meddled with the estate of the deceased Mukamma, and that, therefore, they were bound to account to the plaintiff for the properties taken possession of by them. But there is no allegation in the plaint that the defendants had put themselves in such a position that they were bound to account to the plaintiff for the estate of Mukamma. There is no allegation that they became administrators de son tort so as to become liable to account and, as already stated, there is no prayer for an account.
2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.