POONKAKANDI PUTHIYAVEETTIL CHANDU NAIR Vs. MUNDAMKANDI KUTTIAMBETH ABDURAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appear from the decision of Madhavan Nair, J. in second appeal No. 551 of 1965. The appeal is by the defendant. The question is whether the second appeal taken by the plaintiff before this court was maintainable. The learned Judge who heard the appeal held, it was. It is urged before us that this decision requires reconsideration. We think, the appellant is entitled to succeed on this contention.

(2.) The suit was for rent for an year, Rs. 25. The suit was originally filed as a small cause suit. The defendant raised the contentions that the plaintiff had no title to the property and the lease pleaded was untrue. The defendant also contended that in view of the defence that the plaintiff was not entitled to the property, the suit should not be tried as a small cause suit. The plaintiff thereafter withdrew the suit and the Trial Court as well as the first appellate court dealt with the matter as if the suit was a regular suit. Issue No. 2 raised in the case was "whether the plaintiff has title" The Trial Court decreed the suit In appeal, the decision of the Trial Court was reversed and this court in second appeal No. 561 of 1965 restored the decision of the Trial Court.

(3.) The question whether a second appeal was maintainable will have to be determined with reference to S.102 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is in these terms: