AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 133 wordsKrishnaswamy Aiyar, J.—It is objected that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. This objection was not taken before
the District Munsif. The suit is for the plaintiff''s share of the value of produce realised by the defendants from property common to them and the
plaintiff. I do not see how the possession of the defendants or their receipt of the produce was wrongful within Article 31 of Schedule II of Act IX
of 1887. The decisions quoted, Savarimuthu v. Aithunusu Rowther 25 M. 103 : 11 M.L.J. 428; Innasimuthu and Thomasu v. Soonthia Pillay 13
M.L.J. 136 and Venkoba Row v. Muthu Iyer 18 M.L.J. 88 do not apply. Narayan Biaskar v. Balaji Bapuji 21 B. 248 appears to be in point. I
dismiss the petition with costs.