JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiffs instituted in the Small Cause Court a suit for damages to the extent of Rs. 25 on account of fruit said to have been taken from trees growing on their land. Some of the Defendants set up a title to the land, and the Court accordingly returned the plaint under sec. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for presentation to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. The plaint was thereafter presented to the Munsif of Howrah together with a petition asking the Court to come to a decision on the question of title, but there was no prayer for a declaration of title to the land nor did the Plaintiffs offer to pay any further court-fees. 2. The Munsif registered the suit as one for money and held that it was maintainable as such, and that he had to look at the question of possession principally and that the question of title was only to be incidentally looked into. He found that the Plaintiffs had established their possession to only a portion of the land and gave them a modified decree for Rs. 10 as damages. 3. Both parties appealed, and in dealing with the case the learned Subordinate Judge considered that he was justified in adjudicating as to title, because "the legal advisers of the parties must be presumed to know that the question of title would be decided in such a case," and though no issue had been framed the parties had in fact adduced all the evidence which they could upon such an issue. In the result the Subordinate Judge awarded Rs. 20 damages and made the following declaration: "It shall be declared that both the plots in suit belong to the Plaintiffs and that the Defendant No. 1 has no share in them." 4. Now the Defendants appeal and on their behalf it has been urged (1) that the question of title could not be finally decided in this suit, and that the portion of the decree related thereto should be expunged; (2) that at all events the lower Appellate Court was not justified in adjudicating the title as it did, but should have directed the framing of a fresh issue after amendment of plaint, and. have given the parties an opportunity of adducing evidence on that issue. 5. have given the parties an opportunity of adducing evidence on that issue. 5. We are clearly of opinion that no second appeal lies in this case, and for authority we would refer to the case of Kali Krishna Tagore v. Izzatannissa Khatun I. L. R. 24 Cal. 557 (1897). In a suit like this for money the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to make a declaratory decree for title, which was quite beyond the scope of the suit as instituted and tried in the Munsif's Court. Nevertheless we are precluded by sec. 586 of the CPC from interfering in second appeal, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal but without costs.