TRIBENI KURMI Vs. M RAM DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs came upon the allegation that the defendant had removed moonj from his property. They claimed damages. The plaintiffs' allegation was that the defendant was sarkash, that he had unlawfully removed the said moonj, that a report in respect of such removal had been made at the Thana, and that the defendant had absolutely no right in the moonj. The suit was defended and I am informed the defendant asserted his own right to the moonj and stated that he had cut the moonj from his own land. The amount claimed by way of damages was Rs. 15/- only.

(3.) An issue was raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court before the learned Mun-sif. It was urged (a) that the small cause Court had jurisdiction, (b) that the Panchayati Ada-lat had jurisdiction. The learned Munsif. held that though the Panchayati Adalat had jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was no Panchayati Adulat existing on the date when the plaint was filed, the Court could proceed with the trial of the suit. The learned Munsif also held that the suit was not cognizable by a small cause Court.