PATTADA UTHAYYA Vs. PATTADA SOMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the finding of the learned Munsiff of Virajpet, Coorg, on Issue No 1 in Original Suit No. 140 of 1952, holding that the matters involved in the suit could be agitated by way of a suit.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The plaintiffs and defendant are members of the same family known as 'Pattada' family at Betoli village in Coorg. A few years prior to the institution of the suit, the members of this family, 73 in number, started for the benefit of the family some funds known as 'Grain Fund, Death Fund, Palettimakki Fund, Education Fund and Miscellaneous Fund' and these were being managed by the members of this family. For some reason or other, the plaintiffs did not desire to continue as members of the said funds as at present constituted and managed. Thereupon they notified their said intention to the defendant and asked him to go through the accounts and cause payment of their share in the said funds. The defendant did not comply with their request and consequently the plaintiffs filed the present suit in the Court below for the dissolution of the funds and for accounts and also for a declaration of their shares in the said funds and payment thereof. They estimated the total value of the funds at Rs. 4500/- and their share at Rs. 700/-.

(3.) The defendant inter alia contended that the constitution and working of the various funds alleged in the plaint were not correct, that the suit as not maintainable and that the Court had no, jurisdiction to decide matters involved in the suit. In the memo of particulars filed by the defendant on 16-2-1953 in answer to the information sought by the plaintiffs the defendant has pleaded that the association of plaintiffs and defendant falls within the definition of an unregistered company under, the Indian Companies Act, that all the relative provisions of the said Act were attracted and that the plaintiff's remedy was only by means of an application to the concerned Court for its being wound up. On these pleadings, two preliminary issues were framed by the learned Munsiff. The first issue is whether the matters in issue in this suit could be agitated by way of a suit or only by way of an application for winding up before the District Court or the High Court. The second issue is whether the suit is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The learned Munsiff held on the first issue that the suit was maintainable in that Court and that no application for winding up was necessary and on the second issue he held that the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The present revision petition is filed against the finding of the learned Munsiff on the former part of the first issue holding that the matters involved in the suit could be agitated in that Court. It is unnecessary for the purpose of disposing of this petition to go into the question whether the finding of the learned Munsiff that the plaintiffs could also file an application for winding up at their option is correct or not.