AMMAD Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This motion is by the plaintiff against an order for payment of additional batta to the commissioners deputed for local inspection in the case. In the suit which prays alternatively for recovery of the property, filed in the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram, the plaintiff showed the market value of the property as Rs. 1500. The basis of that valuation is given in the plaint itself as 10 years' gross yield of the property. Defendants 4 to 8 by written statement contended that the suit property, 25 acres in extent, yield more than Rs. 1500 and that, valuing at 10 times the yield, the suit should be valued at Rs. 15000 at least. On 29th September, 1967, the Munsiff settled issues and ordered "the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 100 for a plan and assessing market value". Two advocates were appointed as commission in the case. After three days' local inspection they prepared a plan of the property and a report of its yield which amounted after deduction for revenue, Rs. 2316.49 per annum. Finding that 10 times the yield (the market value) is far above the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction the Munsiff ordered return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The commissioners having submitted a further 'report' claiming additional remuneration counsel for commissioners says that a written counter thereto had been filed by the plaintiff -- the Munsiff ordered Rs. 600 to be deposited as additional batta and also that the "Commissioners shall be at liberty to take out execution for

(2.) Counsel for petitioner contends that once the Munsiff has found that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction he cannot pass any order in the suit and therefore the order for payment of additional batta and declaring the same to be executable is beyond jurisdiction and should be vacated. The argument may appear prima facie to carry force, but does not bear scrutiny S.19 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act X of 1960) provides:

(3.) As two advocates have been deputed as commission and their appointment has not been challenged by the plaintiff at any time before completion of their work, which went on for three days at the spot, the additional remuneration allowed does not appear to be so grossly excessive as to attract clause (c) of S.115 CPC.