Jhakar Sahu vs Raj Kumar Tewari

Varma, J.—I am afraid this second appeal must fail on the preliminary ground that no second appeal lies in a case of this nature. The suit was for recovery of money value of bhaoli produce of some mahua trees standing on plots Nos. 72 and 194 in khata No. 15 in the village Kashidih, district Shahabad. The trial Court gave a modified decree evidently under the impression that it was a rent suit. The respondent went in appeal before the District Judge who dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on grounds which I need not go into and with which I need not express an agreement. The plaintiffs have come in second appeal before this Court. The preliminary objection that has been taken is that u/s 102, Civil P.C. it was a suit for money and it cannot be said to be a suit for rent, therefore no second appeal lies. My attention has been drawn to the case, Maung Kywev, Maung Kala 1927 Ran 94, which was a case where compensation was claimed for the lease of palm trees and it was held that as trees do not come within the definition of immovable property, therefore it could not be held that that was a suit for rent and was not outside the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. It relied upon an earlier decision of the Madras High Court in Natesa Gramani v. Thangavelu Gramani 1914 Mad 362, where a similar view was expressed. In this view of the matter I would dismiss the appeal with costs. Leave for appeal is rejected.