Skip to content


Narasimha Charyulu and anr. Vs. Sowcar Lodd Govindoss and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad1196; 90Ind.Cas.496; (1925)49MLJ185
AppellantNarasimha Charyulu and anr.
RespondentSowcar Lodd Govindoss and anr.
Cases ReferredHarischandra Deo v. Narayana
Excerpt:
- .....for rent; but it is contended that in the original court the plaintiff included with his claim for rent a claim for a cess called savari nasar which is of the nature of the cesses mentioned in clause 13 of the second schedule of the provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887). it does not appear from the plaint that any special claim was made for savari nasar but the claim was made for jodi, russums, etc., as mentioned in the adambadika account and this coupled with the evidence of p.w. 1 would show that the claim was for rent including the russums mentioned. it has been held in s.a. no. 593 of 1899 which was approved in harischandra deo v. narayana (1901) 24 mad. 508 that where cesses have been paid as part of the rent a suit to recover them does not fall within clause 13 of the.....
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies as the suit is of a small cause nature of a value of less than Rs. 500. It is not disputed that this Second Appeal deals only with a matter of a small cause nature, namely, a claim for jodi and road cess which has been held by this Court to be similar to a claim for rent; but it is contended that in the original Court the plaintiff included with his claim for rent a claim for a cess called Savari Nasar which is of the nature of the cesses mentioned in Clause 13 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887). It does not appear from the plaint that any special claim was made for Savari Nasar but the claim was made for jodi, russums, etc., as mentioned in the adambadika account and this coupled with the evidence of P.W. 1 would show that the claim was for rent including the russums mentioned. It has been held in S.A. No. 593 of 1899 which was approved in Harischandra Deo v. Narayana (1901) 24 Mad. 508 that where cesses have been paid as part of the rent a suit to recover them does not fall within Clause 13 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Applying that decision to this case it would appear that this suit was one for rent which also included certain cesses. This would be a suit of a small cause nature and not of the character mentioned in Clause 13. The objection must be upheld and the appeal dismissed with coats.


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