1. Respondents raise the preliminary contention that the suits are of a Small Cause nature and therefore no second Appeal lies. The plaintiff's case was that he and defendants had divided their properties, though the property still remained under the same patta, and that his property was attached for arrears under this patta which were due from defendants 1 to 6, they not having paid up the kist on their property under the same patta, that plaintiff, to save his own property therefore, had to pay up the arrears and he sued for contribution.
2. I think it is clear that the suit is not of the nature contemplated by Article 41 of the 2nd Schedule to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Here there was no joint property, since plaintiff and defendants, on plaintiff's own showing were divided. The mere fact that the patta is still joint and therefore the liability under it is joint, will not affect the manner in which the property is held. The ruling in Srinivasa v. Sivakolundu  12 Mad. 349 is directly in point.
3. I hold that the suits are of a Small Cause nature and therefore no Second Appeals lie. These Second Appeals are dismissed with costs. In S.A. No. 691 of 1921, the memorandum of objections is not pressed and is dismissed with costs.