1. This Rule was obtained on behalf of the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Diamond Harbour. The suit was brought by the two plaintiffs on the allegation that plaintiff No. 2 had been married to the daughter of the defendant, and the plaintiff gave her ornaments worth Rs. 120, and the defendant had misappropriated these ornaments after the death of his daughter, the wife of plaintiff No. 2. The defendant denied the marriage of his daughter with plaintiff No. 2, and the learned Judge decided two questions; whether the daughter of the defendant was married to plaintiff No. 2, and whether the plaintiff No; 2 was the preferential heir to the defendant as regards the property left by her.
2. The question in this Rule is whether the Small Cause Court Judge was competent to decide the case having regard to Article 28 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It seems that it is not a case triable by a Small Cause Court having regard to the fact that the property claimed belonged to the deceased woman and the claim is with regard to the heirship of the deceased woman.
3. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute on the ground that it was not triable by a Small Cause Court Judge. The learned Judge on arrival of the record in his Court will return the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. The costs of the Small Cause Court as well as the costs of this Court will abide the result. The hearing-fee in this Court is assessed at one gold mohur.