DEVAKI AMMA Vs. KOCHUNARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed in 1969. Pending suit some of the plaint schedule properties were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for some public purpose. Thereafter the plaint was amended so as to include a prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs' right to a share in the compensation amount. Some of the defendants had filed a written statement to the original plaint in which one of the contentions was that proper court fee has not been paid for the plaint. But this contention was not pressed for consideration either before or after the amendment of the plaint. Both parties let in evidence on the issues raised on the pleadings and the case was posted for final hearing. One. of the issues raised in the case was whether the court fee paid is not sufficient. After the final hearing the learned Munsiff entered a finding on this issue alone by holding that the valuation for the purpose of court fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction is not correct and that the plaint if properly valued for purpose of jurisdiction will exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. Consequently the lower court held that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction over the subject matter. He did not enter a finding as regards the exact court fee payable on "the valuation. Time to represent the plaint in the proper court was fixed as one month. Before the expiry of this period of one month the plaintiffs filed an application to amend the plaint by withdrawing the declared relief in respect of the compensation amount awarded for some of the plaint properties acquired pending suit. This was rejected by the learned Munsiff stating that after the earlier order directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction over the subject matter no plaint is there to amend. This is objected to in this revision petition.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the view of the lower court that there is no plaint before that Court to amend after the order for return of the plaint to the proper court having jurisdiction, is not correct. In support of his contention he referred to O.7 R.10(2), C.P.C. which is in the following terms : --

(3.) The learned counsel next submitted that even after the order for return is passed, the court can consider an application for amendment and in support of this position he relied on the decisions of the Madras High Court in Ponnapundan v. Authimoola Ponnapundnn (ILR 33 Madras 262), Ramachandrayya v. Venkataratnam ( AIR 1926 Mad. 133 ) and Chendrayya v. Seethanna ( AIR 1939 Mad. 397 ) In Ponnapundan v. Authimoola Ponnapundan (ILR 33 Madras 262) there was an enquiry as to the value of the subject matter and the suit was found undervalued and so the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff amended his plaint by correcting the valuation and striking of some of the properties so as to leave the case in the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff. The District Munsiff thereupon readmitted the plaint and the question for decision was whether this was right. In the Letters Patent Appeal the court held that he has the power. This is followed in the other cases referred to. But there is a line of cases which take the view that once the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction over a suit it cannot pass any valid order in such a suit except the orders which the Statute expressly empowers to pass such as the order to return the plaint to be presented to the proper court and orders as to costs - See Kannuswami Pillai v. Jagathambal ( AIR 1919 Mad. 1071 ). After the order for return of the plaint if any amendment is made by the plaintiff in the plaint and represents it, it is really a fresh plaint which the court has always power to receive. This is different from saying that a court which has held that it has no jurisdiction over the suit can thereafter amend it so as to make it a suit within its jurisdiction. This is also the view taken in the Single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Shobha v. Mahale (AIR 1969 Bombay 370). The principle is stated thus at page 372, Para.7: