THIRUMURTHY CHETTY Vs. PONNAN CHETTY ALIAS KARUPPAN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit to recover money payable under an award. It is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes [Vide Simpson V/s. McMaster (1890) ILR 13 M 344 and Mizaji Lal V/s. Partab Kunwar (1919) ILR 42 A 169]. No second appeal lies and therefore this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal must be dismissed with costs.

(2.) The appellant's pleader has quoted the authority of Kunja Behary Bardhan V/s. Gost Behary Bardhan (1917) 22 CWN 66. The suit there dealt with involved the partition of immoveable property and the award could not be enforced piecemeal by giving the plaintiff a decree for a sum of money which was also due under the award.

(3.) There is a remark in that judgment that a suit for enforcement of an award is in essence a suit for specific performance of a contract. But a suit for the recovery of money, as this is, can in no sense he treated as a suit to enforce a contract. Moreover, the observation that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are practically the same is opposed to the view taken in earlier decisions of the same Court [Vide Sukar Hajam V/s. Oli Mohammad (1914) 25 I.C. 826 and Bhajahari Saha Banila V/s. Behary Lal Basak (1900) ILR 33 C 881].