JUDGMENT This second appeal arising out of recovery of Rs. 2,285/- has been preferred by the defendant. Shortly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff had taken land from Madhya Pradesh Government, Mining Department, mentioned in the plaint for the period 1.4.77 to 31.3.79 and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,200/- per year. An agreement in this regard was executed on 23.4.1977 and possession was delivered on 11.5.77. The facts were that one Sumerchand s/o Banslli Dhar Jain was in unlawful possession. Consequently the plaintiff could not utilise the land. He gave several letters and a notice u/s 80 C.P.C. to the defendant but to no effect. He had deposited a sum of Rs. 960/- as earnest money and Rs. 225/- towards stamps. Thus, he was entitled to recover Rs. 2285/-. The defendant did not dispute that there was an agreement as claimed by the plaintiff but alleged that actual possession had been taken and the plaintiff had done the mining work. He moved an application before the defendant that he was ill and hence he did not want to carryon the mining work. He, therefore, violated the terms of the agreement and the Theka was cancelled. He was not entitled to recover any amount. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court for a sum of Rs. 2060/- on 14.7.1982. The defendant preferred an appeal which too was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed. The defendant has now filed this second appeal. A preliminary objection has been raised that in view of section 96 (4) of the C.P.C. even first appeal was not maintainable as the subject matter of the appeal did not exceed Rs. 3,000/- and there was no question of law involved. This second appeal too is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the State found himself in difficulty to meet the preliminary objection. It is crystal clear from the provisions of section 96 that no appeal lies except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees. In this view of the matter, as no question of law was raised even before the lower appellate Court the first appeal itself was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, as no question of law was raised even before the lower appellate Court the first appeal itself was not maintainable. Unfortunately this point was not raised before the lower appellate Court. Even if it was not raised it was the duty of the Court to see it. Here in this case also no question of law has been pointed out and as no first appeal was maintainable, this second appeal too is not maintainable. The preliminary objection, therefore, succeeds. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The parties are, however, left to hear their own costs.