S. RANGANATHA AIYANGAR Vs. TIRUPARANKUNDRAM ARUMUGANAINAR TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE T.R. SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case comes up before us on a reference by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as the question involved is bereft of direct authority.

(2.) THE petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No. 179 of 1951 on the file of the Sub -Court, Madurai which was a suit to set aside a summary order under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, passed by the District Munsif, Madurai Town, in E.A. No. 228 of 1951 in E.P. No. 2 of 1951 on his file. The respondent herein obtained a decree against one Subramanian Chettiar in the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Town and in execution thereof attached the properties stated to belong to him whereupon the petitioner objected and filed a claim petition which was rejected by the District Munsif. At the time the application for attachment was made, the amount due under the decree came to Rs. 2979 -6 -3. The petitioner the defeated claimant has brought the suit to set aside the order of attachment and to establish his right to the property he claims. By the time the suit was filed the decree amount with subsequent interest had risen to Rs. 3120 -1 -5 and therefore, the suit was filed in the Sub Court, Madurai which according to the plaintiff was the proper Court having jurisdiction to entertain the same. It may be stated that the judgment -debtor was not a party to this suit and no relief as regards title to the property was claimed. Objection was taken by the attaching decree -holder that the proper forum was the District Munsif's Court as the amount for which the property was attached was below the jurisdictional value of that Court and hence for the purpose of jurisdiction, as the suit had been overvalued the Sub -Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The learned Subordinate Judge framed a preliminary issue as to whether the suit had been properly valued for purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction. He held that the suit has been properly valued for purposes of Court -fee but for purposes of jurisdiction it has been overvalued and hence the suit was not maintainable. On this finding the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge, Madurai, disagreeing with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit had been properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction and that the Sub -Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He directed the plaint to be presented to the Sub -Court itself.

(3.) RULE 63 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, lays down that where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive.