VENKATADRI APPA ROW BAHADUR GARU BEING MINOR BY THE AGENT OF THECOURT OF WARDS, THE COLLECTOR OF KISTNA Vs. PAMIDIPARTI VENKATA RATTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It seems to me that this case is not within the decision in Kumara Venkatachella Reddiar V/s. Narayana Reddy 4 M.H.C.R. 393. The defendant here does not say that the rate charged is one to which he has never agreed. He says that as he did not grow jarib crop he should not be charged jarib rate. That contention, it seems to me, involves an admission that jarib rate is the correct rate where jarib crop is grown. He says also, no doubt, that his land is not suitable for jarib crops but that does not amount to a denial of a contract to pay jarib rate for jarib crop. The suit seems to be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

(2.) Even if it were not, the District Munsif should have returned the plaint and not dismissed the suit.

(3.) As I think the Small Cause Court was competent to try the suit, I reverse and remand for disposal according to law.