Soorapaneni Seetharamabrahmam vs Soorapanini Krishnabrahmam

Wallace, J.—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 to defendants Nos. 1 to 6 not having paid up the kist on their property under

the same patta, that plaintiff to save his own property, there fore, had to pay up the arrears, and he sued for contribution.

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 Cause Courts Act. Here

there was no joint property, since plaintiffs 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 M.P 349 : 4

Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 593 is directly in point.

I hold that the suits were of a Small Cause nature and, therefore, no Second Appeals lie. The 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.