( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff-respondents claim for Rs. 200/- as compensation for the removal of a tree belonging to the plaintiffs. It raises an interesting question of law--namely whether the suit for the recovery of damages for a tree alleged to have been dishonestly removed by the defendant from the plaintiffs land is not excepted from the jurisdiction of the court of small causes under clause (35) (ii) of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act because the defendant was acquitted by a competent criminal court on the finding that the tree belonged to him. The plaintiffs and the defendant are residents of the same village and their plots of land adjoin. The plaintiffs, alleged that the tree stood on their plot and they felled it but the defendant dishonestly removed it with the intention of stealing it and misappropriated the timber. He alleged that he filed a criminal complaint against the defendant under Section 379, I. P. C. which was dismissed by the Magistrate. He valued the timber at Rs. 200/- and prayed for a decree for this amount The defendant co