Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Drig Pal Singh Vs. Kunjal

Drig Pal Singh vs Kunjal

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 15, 1917
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/475262

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887), Schedule II, Article 31 - Suit for mesne profits of grove wrongfully received by defendant, whether cognizable by Small Cause Court--Jurisdiction. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Drig Pal Singh

Respondent

Kunjal

Legal References

Cases Referred
Prasadi Lal v. Imdad Husen
Reported In
AIR1918All222; 44Ind.Cas.689

Excerpt

provincial small causes courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, article 31 - suit for mesne profits of grove wrongfully received by defendant, whether cognizable by small cause court--jurisdiction. - rafique, j.1. this is an application in revision from the order of the small cause court at fatehpur returning the plaint to be presented to the proper court, it appears that the plaintiff-applicant sued to recover mesne profits of a grove from which he said he had been wrongfully kept out of possession for three years by the opposite party. the learned judge considered that the claim of the applicant fell under article 31, schedule ii, of the small causes courts act and was not, therefore, cognizable by him. he accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. he is supported in the view of the law he has taken by a case of this court, i. e. sheo bodh v. surjan 19 ind. cas. 427 : 11 a.l.j. 238 as also by several oases of the bombay and the madras high courts. for the applicant reliance is placed on the full bench ruling of kunjo behary singh v. madhub chundra ghose 23 c. 884 : 12 ind. dec. (n.s.) 587 (f.b). the view taken by the calcutta high court seems to have been adopted by this court about eighteen years ago in the case of prasadi lal v. imdad husen a.w.n. (1898) 10. the facts of that case are not quite the same as those of the present case. in the case of prasadi lal v. imdad husen a.w.n. (1898) 10 the plaintiff had sued for damages for wrongful eviction. in the present case the plaintiff is suing for the mesne profits of the property from which he was kept out of possession for three years. the case of prasadi lal v. imdad husen does not apply to the present case. the application fails and is dismissed with costs. let the original plaint be returned.

Full Judgment

Rafique, J.

1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Small Cause Court at Fatehpur returning the plaint to be presented to the proper Court, It appears that the plaintiff-applicant sued to recover mesne profits of a grove from which he said he had been wrongfully kept out of possession for three years by the opposite party. The learned Judge considered that the claim of the applicant fell under Article 31, Schedule II, of the Small Causes Courts Act and was not, therefore, cognizable by him. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. He is supported in the view of the law he has taken by a case of this Court, i. e. Sheo Bodh v. Surjan 19 Ind. Cas. 427 : 11 A.L.J. 238 as also by several oases of the Bombay and the Madras High Courts. For the applicant reliance is placed on the Full Bench ruling of Kunjo Behary Singh v. Madhub Chundra Ghose 23 C. 884 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 587 (F.B). The view taken by the Calcutta High Court seems to have been adopted by this Court about eighteen years ago in the case of Prasadi Lal v. Imdad Husen A.W.N. (1898) 10. The facts of that case are not quite the same as those of the present case. In the case of Prasadi Lal v. Imdad Husen A.W.N. (1898) 10 the plaintiff had sued for damages for wrongful eviction. In the present case the plaintiff is suing for the mesne profits of the property from which he was kept out of possession for three years. The case of Prasadi Lal v. Imdad Husen does not apply to the present case. The application fails and is dismissed with costs. Let the original plaint be returned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial