MUDDANNA SHETTY AND Vs. MAIRE ALIAS LAXMI HEGGADTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent sued the petitioners who were her tenants for damages resulting from their unauthorisedly cutting some trees standing on the leasehold. The suit which was instituted and tried as a small cause suit was decreed though for a smaller amount than that claimed. The petitioners have come up in revision.

(2.) In addition to challenging the decision in regard to its merits it is urged by the petitioners that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the claim came under Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The specific article relied upon are Articles 4, 11, and 35(ii). It is urged that in seeking to recover the damages for the value of the trees the plaintiff was trying to assert her interest in immovable property, which is covered by Article 4, or she must be regarded as seeking determination or enforcement of her right or interest in the immoveable property, which comes under Article 11, and that in any event the plaint allegations showed that according to the plaintiff the defendants were committing theft or mischief or criminal misappropriation in cutting and appropriating trees which did not belong to them but to the plaintiff. The lower Court took the view that as the suit was one for damages it was triable as a small cause suit.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to several decisions in support of his contention. In Lalu Sardar v. Ohedali, 45 Ind Cas 16: (AIR 1919 Cal 1035 (1)) it was held that a suit to recover the value of paddy forcibly, wrongfully and maliciously cut and taken away by the defendant came under Article 35(ii). It is clear that according to the plaint allegations themselves the defendant had a criminal intention; therefore his acts would constitute one or more of the offences punishable under Chapter XVII of the I. P. C. and hence the suit came under Article 35(ii).