1. This is a suit of a small cause nature, being a suit for kattubadi. The mere fact that the plaintiff asserted that the kattubadi was chargeable on land
cannot be taken to alter the nature of the suit when, in fact, it was not so chargeable. Notwithstanding the decision in Venkatarama Doss v.
Maharajah of Vizianagram ILR 19 Mad. 103 we must say that in our opinion kattubadi is not, in the absence of any custom or contract to the
contrary, chargeable on land. The plaintiff, it is to be observed, abandoned the claim for a charge and obtained a decree for money only. Then it is
argued that the claim for the money due on account of emolument payable to karnams is a claim within Article 13 of the schedule to the Small
Cause Courts Act. It is said that it is a due payable to the plaintiff by reason of his interest in Immovable property. If the claim were made by the
karnam, it would not be of that character, although it might come under other words of the same article. As the claim is made by the zamindar, it
must rest on some custom or contract. It is certainly not a claim made by reason of any interest in land. For these reasons we must hold that no
second appeal lies, and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
