B RAJA RAJESWARA SETHUPATHI AVERGAL ALIAS MUTHURAMALINGA SETHUPATHIAVERGAL, RAJAH OF RAMNAD Vs. KAMITH RAVUTHAN SINCE ATTAINED MAJORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order passed under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 in the exercise of the High Court's powers of revision over the Judgment given by the District Munsif of Manamadura in certain Small Cause suits.

(2.) Those suits were brought by the Rajah of Ramnad in a Small Cause Court to recover damages for the cutting of trees in the defendants holdings. The damages claimed amount to no more than a few rupees in each case. It is now alleged in an affidavit sworn to by a subordinate of the Rajah that the effect of our order will be to deprive the plaintiff of tirwa to the extent of Rs. 30,000 when the whole zamindari is considered. There is no counter affidavit and this statement therefore is not challenged. It is therefore urged that the order involves directly or indirectly, a claim or question of upwards of Rs. 10,000 in value.

(3.) The reference in the Civil Procedure Code is evidently to questions arising between the parties to the suit and not to questions affecting the title of one of the parties to the suit in suits that may hereafter be brought but are not now pending. Vide Hanuman Prasad v. Bhagavati Prasad I.L.R. 24 All. 236, which follows a decision of the Privy Council in Moofti Mohummad Ubdoollah V/s. Baboo Mootichund 1 M.I.A. 363, and must be therefore preferred to the decision of a single Judge in Ananda Chandra Bose V/s. Broughton 9 B.L.R. 423.