JUDGMENT Krishnaswamy Aiyar, J. 1. It is objected that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. This objection was not taken before the District Munsif. The suit is for the plaintiffs share of the value of produce realised by the defendants from property common to them and the plaintiff. I do not see how the possession of the defendants or their receipt of the produce was wrongful within Article 31 of Schedule II of Act IX of 1887. The decisions quoted, Savarimuthu v. Aithunusu Rowther 25 M. 103 : 11 M.L.J. 428; Innasimuthu and Thomasu v. Soonthia Pillay 13 M.L.J. 136 and Venkoba Row v. Muthu Iyer 18 M.L.J. 88 do not apply. Narayan Biaskar v. Balaji Bapuji 21 B. 248 appears to be in point. I dismiss the petition with costs.