Chandiramani, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court against the decree, dated November l7, 1947, of Sri Girish Chandra, Civil Judge, Sitapur, sitting as Judge, Small Cause Court.
(2.) IT appears that Maharaj Lal Behari opposite party and Lala Prag Narain are co -sharers in Mohal Uttar village Thakurnagar, district Sitapur, and each owns a half share in the Mohal, On June 30. 1946, the applicants Bhagwan Sirup and Ambika Prasad purchased the produce of Phulwari and Kondar from the two co -sharers for one year for Rs. 560 and executed a pronote for the amount. As the amount due on the pronote was not satisfied, a suit was filed in the Small Cause Court for recovery of Rs. 405, Rs. 155 having already been received by the two co -sharers. In defence it, was urged that this was a suit for recovery of Sayar income and it was not cognizable by the Small Cause Court. The applicant Bhagwan Sarup and Ambika Prasad also said that they had paid to Prag Narain further sums of Rs. 155 and Rs, 125. Defendant No. 3 Parag Narain admitted receipt of Rs. 155, but not of Rs. 125. The trial court held that the suit was not far recovery of sayar income and was cognizable by the Small Cause Court. It held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 77.8 from his co -sharer Prag Narain. It held that Rs. 125 as alleged by Bhagwan Sarup and Ambika Prasad, had not been paid. Accordingly the plaintiff's suit was decreed for Rs. 125 and proportionate costs against Bhagwan Sarup and Ambica Prasad and for Rs. 77 -8 with proportionate costs against Prag Narain. The only point that has been urged in this application is that the suit was for recovery of sayar income and, therefore, it ought to have been filed only in the Revenue Court. Nobody appears on behalf, of the opposite parties. This contention has no force at all. It is true that the income derived by the gale of the produce of Phulwari and Kondar is sayar income, but here the claim was based on the basis of a pronote. The recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a pronote can be made only in the Civil Court and where there is such special provision that in the small Cause Court. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on Ram Prasad Tamoli v. Benaras Cotton and Silk Milts Limited, 14 R.D. 313 That was a case in which the landholder had sued directly for the recovery of money from his licensee and there it was held that the case would lie in the Revenue Court. No pronote had been obtained in that case, The case is clearly distinguishable. The suit was rightly instituted in the Court of Small Causes.
(3.) THE application fails and is hereby dismissed No order as to costs.;