SHANKAR VISHVANATH KATRE Vs. SHRINIVAS BHALCHANDRA PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Kane on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to this appeal that no second appeal lies.

(2.) The question is whether the suit which has given rise to this appeal is a suit of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, The suit was to recover Rs. 24-5-7 as rent due in respect of the plaint property for two years including galli-patti and local cess. The defendants case was that the rent was fixed at six maunds and eight payalis, that the suit would not lie until the plaintiffs got a declaration that they were entitled to enhance the rent, and that the rent claimed was excessive. On the face of these pleadings it seems to me that the suit was of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, and that being so, the objection must be upheld, and the second appeal must be dismissed.

(3.) It is argued, however, by the appellant's counsel that the suit being to recover the amount of that and galli-patti, it could not be considered to be a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and he relied upon the decision in Madhavrao V/s. Rama , but that was a case of a superior and inferior holder. The village in suit was not a Khoti village and the rules under the Khoti Act did not apply, and the liability of the defendants as tenants depended upon certain agreements and the course of conduct between the parties. It appears that certain agreements had taken place between this plaintiff and other sharers in the inam and their tenants. This, no doubt, concluded all other parties except the plaintiff who was a minor, and it was open to the minor to establish by evidence what his share in total rent came to. Apart from that, I am not satisfied that merely because the plaintiff sues to recover rent and calls it that or galli-patti or by any other name, the suit would not be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.