SUBBA RAO Vs. SITARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant's tenancy terminated in 1891. When this suit was brought there was no relation of landlord and tenant subsisting between the plaintiffs and the defendant. THE defendant was a trespasser and the claim was one for mesne profits. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that it appears from the claim itself that the mesne profits cannot be ascertained without the taking of an account, and it is sought to distinguish this case from Seshagiri Ayyar V/s. Marakathammal I.L.R. 22 Mad. 196. where it was held, following a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, that a suit for mesne profits is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. In a sense, no doubt, every claim for mesne profits involves the taking of an account, but a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for an account, but a suit for damages, and is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts under Art. 31 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. We think that the suit was a suit of a nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes and that the preliminary objection should be upheld.

(2.) THE second appeal is dismissed with costs.