Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is against the decree in a Small Cause Suit for recovery of mesne profits due to plaintiffs 1 to 7. A decree was obtained in O. S.893 of 1120 for recovery of possession of the property comprised in Survey No. 219/6 etc. with mesne profits. The plaintiffs got a sale deed in respect of the properties and also the rights under the decree in O. S.893 of 1120. The decree in O. S.893 of 1120 made the defendants therein liable for mesne profits at the rate of 30 parahs of paddy every year. The decree in O. S.893 of 1120 was passed only on 31st October 1957 and according to the plaintiffs, it is possible for them to recover mesne profits in the execution proceedings only for a period of 3 years from 31st October 1957. The present suit was filed for one year's mesne profits from 31st October 1960 to 31st October 1961. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff. The revision petitioner raised before me two contentious. The first contention was that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs is benami for the defendants in O. S.893 of 1120 and he is therefore not entitled to make any claim for mesne profits. The second contention was that the suit is not triable as a Small Cause Suit. I shall first dispose of the second contention raised by the learned advocate for the revision petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that the suit is one excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes on account of S.12 (1) read with Art.32 of the Schedule of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act. Art.32 of the Schedule is in the following terms: "any other suit for an account, including a suit by a mortgagor, after the mortgage has been satisfied, to recover surplus collections received by the mortgagee and a suit for the profits on immovable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant;" The suit which has given rise to the revision petition is one for profits of immovable property belonging to the plaintiff wrongfully received by the defendant. There is a sharp conflict of opinion on the interpretation of Art.31 in Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which corresponds to Art.32 of the Kerala Act. All the High Courts with the exception of the Calcutta High Court take the view that a suit for mesne profits even without a prayer for accounts falls under Art.31 and is excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. In U. Min Din v. U. Po Thaung AIR. 1928 Rangoon 102 it was laid down that Art.31 is not intended to apply only to a suit for account strictly so called, for if that were the case the entire article except the six words would be mere surplusage. It seems that the Legislature by not confining themself merely 'to any other suits for account' but by going on to say that such suit includes a suit by a mortgagor and a suit for profits of immovable property in certain cases intended that the article should apply to certain suits which are not strictly speaking suits for an account at all, but which are analogous to suits for an account, which for that reason should be treated in the same way as a suit for account as far as cognizability by a Court of Small Causes is concerned. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Simar Nath v. Official Receiver AIR. 1938 Lahore 219 held that a suit for mesne profits even though for sum ascertained is excepted from the cognizance of Small Cause Courts in view of Art.31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Their Lordships observed thus: "Counsel for the respondent contends that a suit for a sum ascertained does not come within the purview of Art.31 and relies on 23 Cal. 884,35 P. R.1902, 94 P. R.1900,32 Bom. 560 and AIR. 1927 Cal. 375. These judgments no doubt support his contention, but there is a large array of authority on the other side too, as, for example, 6 Rang. 60, 25 Mad. 103, 8 I. C. 270,141 I.C. 825, 40 All. 142, AIR. 1933 Lah. 509 and 25 Bom. 85. 884,35 P. R.1902, 94 P. R.1900,32 Bom. 560 and AIR. 1927 Cal. 375. These judgments no doubt support his contention, but there is a large array of authority on the other side too, as, for example, 6 Rang. 60, 25 Mad. 103, 8 I. C. 270,141 I.C. 825, 40 All. 142, AIR. 1933 Lah. 509 and 25 Bom. 85. The argument employed in the former set of cases is that the words "any other suit for an account" govern the latter part of the Article also and only those suits are excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts which contemplate a decree for account. The second set of authorities holds a contrary view mainly on the ground that claims to mesne profits directly involve title to immovable property and not incidentally and that the Legislature had properly excepted suits for mesne profits from the cognizance of the Courts of Small Causes. With all respect, we do not agree with the construction put by 23 Cal. 884 and other similar authorities on the wording of Art.31 and are in respectful agreement with the opinion expressed in AIR. 1933 Lah. 509, especially as the trend of authority in the High Courts of Bombay, Madras, Rangoon, Allahabad and Nagpur is also in the same direction. Some of the judgments cited above from these Courts have discussed the matter at length from every point of view and it would be a mere act of supererogation to recapitulate those arguments here. We hold therefore that the suit as instituted was excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court." The wording of Art.31 considered in the above decision is identical with the wording of Art.32 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations and hold that this suit is not triable as a Small Cause Suit. In this view, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the other contention of the revision petitioner. I therefore set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor and remand the case to the trial court with a direction that the trial court will return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court within a time to be fixed by it. The Civil Revision Petition is thus allowed. I make no order as to costs. Allowed.