PARAMESWARAN PILLAI Vs. NILAKANTA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this C. R. P. is the defendant in a small Cause Suit. In Ext. P1 partition between the parties a ' venthek ' tree standing on the defendant's share was reserved for the plaintiff for his future felling and appropriation. THE plaintiff's case is that in November 1955 the defendant cut and appropriated the tree and the suit is laid for damages Rs. 200/-being the value of timber so appropriated. THE learned Munsiff who tried the suit has decreed the same. Hence the C. R. P.

(2.) THE main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a suit of this nature cannot be tried as a Small Cause Suit, it being exempted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court in item 36 (j)of the schedule appended to the Small Cause Courts Act, which reads: "36. A suit for compensation 0 ). for an act which is, or, save for the provisions of chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), would be, an offence punishable under Chapter XVII of the said Code". THE act alleged on the part of the defendant comes within the definition of mischief in Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and as such this suit comes within the exception in item 36 0 ). I am fortified in this view by the dictum in Thankappan Pillai v. Ammukutty Amma (1961 klt. 185) where the suit for damages for mischief done to a portion of a house belonging to the plaintiff was held to be covered by the aforesaid item 36 0) and as such not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.