Adapa Sattemma vs Adapa Ramayya alias Tatayya

William Gentle, J.—This is a revision petition u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The petitioner was the plaintiff. She is the

widow of a man named Narayudu, a son of the defendant. Before his death the family was living joint and the defendant was the kartha of the

family. The deceased son and the petitioner had two daughters one of whom had been married before the son''s death and the second daughter

had to be married. It is not in dispute that the cost of the marriage is an obligation to be borne by the family and to be discharged by the defendant

out of the income from the family property. The defendant, as kartha of the family, refused, or at any rate failed, to meet the obligation which

occasioned; the plaintiff borrowing money to discharge the necessary expenses. Her suit was for a sum of Rs. 250 to be reimbursed by the

defendant, the expenses to which she had been put. It is conceded that the suit is one u/s 69 of the Contract Act by a person seeking to be

reimbursed by another in respect of payment of moneys which the other was bound to pay.

The learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit, without any evidence being given upon a preliminary objection that it is not one which comes

within the purview of the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. In his judgment he observed that the plaintiff should have obtained permission

from the defendant to expend the money, which she spent upon the marriage of the daughter and also that the plaintiff had no right to claim against

the defendant in respect of unascertained or unestablished expenditure.

At the hearing before me it was suggested that Articles 30 and 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act applied and that the

suits, indicated in those articles, include the suit in the present case which, by virtue of Section 15(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is

excluded from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court. Article 30 relates to a suit for an account of property and for its due administration under

decree. Article 31 relates to a suit for an account including a suit by a mortgagor. I am unable to see how the suit out of which this petition arises

can possibly be included in either of those articles. It is not a suit for an account. It is a suit by a person who has expended money which is payable

by another person the defendant, who is bound to repay it. Of course the plaintiff must establish that the money which she claims was properly

expendable by her and for which the defendant, as kartha of a Hindu undivided family, is responsible but that is in no sense a claim for an account.

In my view the learned District Munsiff was wrong in dismissing the suit and his decision must be set aside.

The suit will ''be restored and remanded for hearing in accordance with law In any event the dismissal of the suit was not proper course to have

been followed. The learned District Munsiff should have directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.

The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this petition. The costs of the suit will abide the result.