Mahboob Momin v. Bhagwati Prasad .

Chamier, C.J:— This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for 15 annas 10½ pies on account of what is called katihari. The appellant is a weaver living in a village owned by the respondent and by others who were impleaded as pro forma defendants. In the Survey and Settlement glossary katihari is described as a tax on professions and in Mr. Nilmoni De's Survey and Settlement Guide as a tax for homestead paid by followers of certain professions such as weavers, oil pressers and goldsmiths. It appears that the word ‘trades’ would be more appropriate than “professions.” The Settlement Record gives the rent of the appellant's holding and states that the land on which his house in the abadi stands is belagan but there is the following note: “Salana katihari bashart karne tana fitana 8-annas.” This is plainly a tax the amount of which depends on the number of looms used. The respondent does not in his plaint make any claim for rent. He does not even give the number of any plot in respect of which the claim is made. He says only that traders in the village pay katihari at various rates, that the appellant is liable to pay so much as katihari and that the katihari is entered in the Settlement fard rewaj.

2. The Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the claim was for an illegal cess. The District Judge agreed that the suit should be dismissed. He was of opinion that the claim was not a claim for rent but for a tax on a trade and was not recoverable. Jwala Prasad, J., held that the suit was maintainable and remanded the case to the District Court to be tried on the facts. It seems to me to be quite clear that the suit is one of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes and, therefore, a second appeal to this Court was barred by Section 102 of the CPC. It may be that there was a Court of Small Causes which could and should have tried the case. But that matter is not before us.

3. I would allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Judge of this Court and dismiss the appeal to this Court with costs of both hearings in this Court.

4. Sharfuddin, J.:— I agree.

V.S/R.K

5. Appeal allowed.