PARIYARAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DAMODARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent alleged that the first defendant had cut the branches of certain trees standing in this property illegally and thereby he sustained loss. THE first defendant, namely the appellant herein acted in excess of his power conferred on him as Executive Officer of the Panchayat. THE damages sustained has been assessed and valued at Rs. 1000/ -. Claiming the same the suit was filed. But it was dismissed being not maintainable. It was found by the trial court that, as the plaintiff did not recourse to the statutory remedy, the suit could not lie. THE respondent / plaintiff lookup the matter in appeal. THE appeal was allowed. THEre was a commission report. THE Commissioner had assessed the loss as Rs. 600/ -. THErefore in appeal the suit was decreed enabling the respondent / plaintiff to realise Rs. 600/- from the defendants, namely the appellant and second respondent herein with future interest at 6%. THE appellate decree is under challenge in this second appeal.

(2.) NOTICE was issued on the question of law formulated.

(3.) S. 12 of the Act provides a pecuniary limit of Rs. 1000/- for small cause suits. But the pecuniary limit contained in S. 102 of the C. P. C. is Rs. 3000/ -. Thus it is clear that S. 102 in CPC has brought within its fold certain suits which are not pure small cause suits in terms of S. 12 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957. Added to this is the words of the nature cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes to indicate something more than the suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes. The amount of value of the subject matter of the Original Suit, wherefrom this Second Appeal arises, does not exceed Rs. 3000/ -. Therefore, this Second Appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. .