Venkoba Rao vs S. Muthu Aiyar

Munro, J.—The question for determination is whether the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The plaint begins by describing the

suit as a suit for the value of paddy wrongfully carried away by the defendant. It then goes on to state that certain land had been hypothecated to

the plaintiff in 1896 by one A. Kilakodayan, and afterwards sold by the latter to the defendant; that the plaintiff got a decree on the hypothecation

bond, purchased the land in execution and got delivery on the 19th November 1905; that at the time there were crops on the land which had been

raised by the defendant; and that the defendant though entitled to only one-sixth of the crops as waram, wrongfully reaped and carried away the

whole produce. The suit as brought is, in my opinion, exempted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes u/s 31 of the Second Schedule of

Act IX of 1887, being a suit for the profits of immovable property, belonging, to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the

defendant; vide Damedar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve ILR (1892) B. 42 where it is pointed out that when a plaintiff alleges that

the defendant has wrongfully received the plaintiff''s share of profits, the suit falls u/s 31. I therefore set aside all the proceedings in this suit and

direct that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court. No costs are allowed as the defendant should have appeared and pressed

the objection in the Court below.