Subba Rao and Another vs Sitaramayya

The defendant''s tenancy terminated in 1891. When this suit was brought there was no relation of landlord and tenant subsisting between the

plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant was a trespasser and the claim was one for mesne profits. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants

that it appears from the claim itself that the mesne profits cannot be ascertained without the taking of an account, and it is sought to distinguish this

case from Seshagiri Ayyar v. Marakathammal ILR 22 Mad. 196. where it was held, following a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court,

that a suit for mesne profits is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. In a sense, no doubt, every claim for mesne profits involves the taking of an

account, but a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for an account, but a suit for damages, and is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small

Cause Courts under Article 31 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. We think that the suit was a suit of a nature

cognizable in a Court of Small Causes and that the preliminary objection should be upheld.

The second appeal is dismissed with costs.