STATE OF MADRAS Vs. CHITTURI RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for determination in both the civ. Revn. Petns. is the same & I, therefore, deal with them together.

(2.) Government sold in auction the right to pasture cattle on certain lanka lands & the resps. became the successful auction purchasers. The terms of engagement prohibited the lessee from cultivating the land. Apparently the prohibition was imposed as a measure of River conservancy. The terms of the engagement also authorised the Collector of East Godavari to impose a penalty for violation of the condition. After having got possession of the lanka landa for purposes of pasture the resps. cultivated tobacco therein & the Collector imposed a penalty on them. They failed to pay the amount & so two suits were filed against them to recover these amounts on the small cause side in the Subordinate Judge's Ct., Amalapuram. The resps. then took the objection that the Small Cause Ct. had no jurisdiction by reason of Article 7 of Sch. II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This objection was upheld & the plaints returned for presentation to the proper Ct. Government have now come up in revision.

(3.) It appears to me that in making the order he did the learned trial Judge overlooked the substance of the pltf's claim. That claim was this: The deft. took on lease certain lands subject to certain conditions. He has violated one of those conditions. I claim damages for the same. I have the right to determine the question of damages & I have fixed that at a certain figure. In other words the suit is for damages for breach of contract pure & simple.