JUDGMENT 1. On this appeal being called on for hearing Mr. Agarwala, on behalf of the respondents, raised a preliminary objection that no appeal lay to this Court under Section 102 of the CPC, as the suit was of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. It was a suit for the recovery of Rs. 15 being the value of certain trees cut down by the defendants. On the plaint, as framed, the suit was a suit for money which lay in the Court of Small Cause. It was, however, filed in the Court of the Munsif and under the law one appeal only is given to the lower appellate Court the right of second appeal being taken away by the Code. Mr. Vishun Nath on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant has urged that the suit is not a Small Cause Court suit as a question of title had arisen, and he has relied upon two cases. The first is that of Churaman v. Balli, [1887] 9 All. 591. That was a suit for mali-kana and it was found in that case, that the malikana was a charge upon immovable property. The suit in that case, therefore, was not a Small Cause Court suit. The second case relied upon is a ruling of the Calcutta High Court: Sitab Rai v. Dubai Nagesia, [1907] 6 C.L.J. 218. That was a suit by a jotdar for the value of trees cut down by the defendants. The defendants, who were tenants of the other lands in the village claimed a customary right to cut down trees outside their holdings for certain purposes. In view of the defence the Calcutta High Court held that a question of proprietary or customary right was raised and that, therefore, the suit was not a Small Cause Court suit. 2. In my opinion, whether or not a suit is of the nature triable by a Court of Small Causes depends upon the frame of the suit itself and not upon the defence that the defendant may set up. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. It is not the defence that determines the nature of the suit, but it is the plaint. I find that in a case in this Court, Sada Shankar v. Brij Mohan Das, [1898] 20 All. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. It is not the defence that determines the nature of the suit, but it is the plaint. I find that in a case in this Court, Sada Shankar v. Brij Mohan Das, [1898] 20 All. 480., a Bench of this Court has held that although a question of proprietary title had arisen in the case, yet as the suit was upon the plaint, a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and even though the plaint was returned under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for institution in the Munsif's Court, the suit still retained the character ascribable to it according to the plaint. The fact that a question of proprietary title arose did not alter its nature. I think, sitting as a single Judge, I am bound by the ruling of this Court. I hold that no second appeal lies and I dismiss the appeal with costs.