VICTORIA Vs. YESURAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are boarded before us pursuant to a reference by a Division Bench. In the reference order, it has been mentioned that in Valsalan Vs. Kaumudi, 1982 KHC 127, Ramanan Vs. Chitrasenan, 2007 (1) KHC 1044 and Sumangala Vs. Syamala, 2013 (1) KHC 441 the view uniformly taken by three Division Benches of this Court that in a suit for partition, where the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession of the property along with other sharers, the value of the subject - matter for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction is the value of the plaintiff's share as mentioned in the plaint requires a reconsideration. According to the reference order, there is considerable doubt as to what would be the legal position if one of the defendants in such a suit applies for passing a supplementary preliminary decree for partition of his share having a market value exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court? Whether it will be proper to reject such a claim simply for the reason that the Court which passed the preliminary decree did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such a relief? What would be the remedy available to a defendant in such a situation?

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it will be useful to take a note of the relevant facts. Supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 3rd defendant in a suit for partition filed separate appeals challenging the preliminary decree passed in the suit. Immovable properties, situate in Pudussery Village, Palakkad Taluk and District, are the subject - matter of the partition suit. The place where the suit property is situate formed part of the erstwhile Madras Province. The suit was instituted on 30/01/2013. Market value of the plaint schedule properties, as shown in the plaint, is Rs.11,25,000.00. Value of the plaintiffs' share is Rs.1,87,500.00. Learned Sub Judge decreed the suit in part. The appeal preferred by the 3rd defendant before this Court was received on file and numbered as R. FA. No. 3 of 2017. The Registry refused to number the appeal filed by supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 4 raising an objection that going by the valuation of the plaintiffs' share, the appeal would not be maintainable before this Court.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that in R. FA. No. 3 of 2017, the defendant has shown value of the schedule properties at Rs.30,00,000.00 and valuation of the 3rd defendant's 1/5th share as Rs.6,00,000.00. What is the basis for this valuation is not clear either from the plaint or from the decree in the Suit. In plaintiffs' appeal, valuation of the property is shown as in the plaint, as mentioned above. The Registry therefore took a stand that the appeal has to be filed before the District Court concerned.