ORDER Bennet, J.
1. This is a civil revision by a defendant against a decree of the Small Cause Court awarding the plaintiff a refund of Rs. 62-3-0, purchase money. The admitted facts are that the applicant defendant Chhotku sold the wood of two trees which had fallen down to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cut up these trees but when he attempted to remove them from the grove of the defendant he was prevented from doing so by defendant 2. Learned Counsel has argued that plaintiff should not have obtained a decree and that his remedy should have been against defendant 2. It is true that the Court below has held that the wood belonged to defendant 1 and that defendant 1 stopped the plaintiff from taking the wood. The question between the plaintiff and defendant 1 is under the Sale of Goods Act and Section 33 lays down that delivery may be effected as follows:
Delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be; treated as delivery or which has the effected putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorised to hold them on his behalf.
2. There was no agreement between the parties that anything should be treated as delivery and therefore the second part of this section would apply that the goods should have been put into the possession of the buyer. The fact that the I plaintiff had cut up the fallen trees does not in my opinion amount to taking possession of them because the wood still remained in the grove of defendant 1. In my opinion the possession would have} passed to the plaintiff when he would put that wood into carts and take it away. He was prevented from doing this by defendant 2. Therefore the plaintiff did not get possession and there was no delivery. As there was no delivery defendant 1 failed to carry out his part of the contract which was to deliver the wood and trees to the plaintiff and there-fore the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the purchase money as has been de- creed. Some argument was made about jurisdiction. A Small Cause Court has no cognizance to consider the question of title to immoveable property. There was no dispute about the immoveable property in this case as it was admitted that the trees had fallen down and were therefore moveable property. Moreover the claim of the plaintiff was merely for refund of the purchase money in a contract of sale of moveable property. I therefore dismiss this application in revision with costs.