JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the dismissal of his suit by both the courts below. The suit was for cancellation of a decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and that the court of Small Causes passing the decree had no jurisdiction to try that suit. 2. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the court of small causes had jurisdiction to try that suit, the decree of which is sought to be cancelled. . Both the courts below held that the court of small causes had jurisdiction to try that suit. The suit was for damages caused to the crop of the plaintiff's trees by reason of the force of water as a result of the heavy rain fall. The heavy rain fall, according to the allegation of the plaint, resulted in the flow of water with great force causing damage to the trees. It was further alleged that in 1955 the defendant had obstructed the flow of water in his grove and turned it towards east into the grove of the plaintiff and also flowed water of his (defendant's) grove into the grove of the plaintiffs. It is clear that part of the injury was caused by diversion of the water. Obstruction of an easement was only an accidental circumstance which does not bring the plaint within the exception of Article 35 (i) of II Schedule to Act IX of 1887. In Re: Hausambhai Abdullabhai, ILR XX Bom. 283, the High Court of Bombay held that the suit is cognizable by the court of Small causes as one for damages caused by the injury to a wall. The fact that the injury was caused by the diversion of a water course or obstruction of an easement is an accidental circumstance which does not bring the plaint within the exception of Article 35 (i) of II Schedule to Act IX of 1887. The principle fully applies to the present case. The fact that the injury was caused by the diversion of a water course or obstruction of an easement is an accidental circumstance which does not bring the plaint within the exception of Article 35 (i) of II Schedule to Act IX of 1887. The principle fully applies to the present case. This decision was followed in Jagdat v. Jagmohan, A.I.R. 1918 Oudh 2 wherein Linsday, J. C. observed : "I agree that a claim for damages caused to the wall by the defendant's diversion of his own water course is not a suit falling within Article 35 clause (i) of Schedule I, to the Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) ." These decisions were later on followed in Abdul Qayum v. Fariuddin Mirza, 1950 ALJ 60 relied upon by the courts below. Kaul, J. observed : "Damages in the present case are claimed for the injury caused to the plaintiffs wall on account of the accumulation of rain water on the defendant's land. It is true that this was the result of the defendant's obstructing the channel through which water used to flow out. This would not however as held in Re. Hausambhai Abdullabhail and Jagdat Jagmohan being a case like the present within the exception just referred to. I am satisfied that the case was cognizable by the court of small causes." and was rightly held by the courts below to be within the jurisdiction of that court. 3. The result is that the appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.