GOVIND RAI Vs. DIGBIJOY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant against whom a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for damages for having cut away certain trees wrongfully and without consent of the landlord from a plot of land known as khata No. 322 of village Bahrampur in the district of Monghyr. It is said that the trees were cut on 4 February 1934. The case for the defendant was that he had a right to the trees but that he had nothing to do with the cutting which was done by one Babuji Issar. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the case of {the plaintiffs had not been made out and therefore dismissed the suit.

(2.) On appeal the learned District Judge held that the story of the defendant that the trees were out by Babuji Issar was not convincing as the respondent is the tenant of the holding. The learned District Judge relied on a certain document filed by the appellant at the appellate stage. So far as the actual cutting of the trees is concerned, he came to the conclusion that this was done by the appellant and not by the Babuji Issar.

(3.) The only question that has been raised in second appeal is whether the suit should have been tried as a small cause Court suit. Both the Courts below were of opinion that this was not a case which should have been so tried. The trial Court says: The learned pleader for the defendant argued In the first place that the suit was not maintainable in this Court. It could be maintained only in a Court having Small Cause court powers. But to my mind the contention does not appeal. Having regard to the forms of the relief claimed, I may say that the suit has been properly styled as a title suit and this Court has therefore jurisdiction to try it.