N. RAM MOHAN Vs. J. KASTHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to transfer the pauper suit numbered as O. P. No. 254 of 1974 together with all the pending applications on the file of the X Asst. City Civil Judge, Madras, to the Original Side of this Honourable Court, for trial and disposal according to law. For the purpose of this transfer suffice it to state that the petitioner herein has filed the Original Petition for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties before the X Asst. City Civil Judge, Madras. Subsequent to the filing of the pauper suit for partition, the respondent in that Original Petition who is no other than the mother of the petitioner herein, died. Hence the petitioner herein as filed an application stating that after the death of his mother, who was the respondent in that Original Petition, he is titled to get a share of 3/4 in the suit properties instead of half share, and the value of such 3/4 share is admittedly more than Rs. 50,000. This amendment sought for by the petitioner herein has been allowed by consent of the respondent therein. Thus it is clear that the X Asst. City Civil Judge, Madras, will not have jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as the value is over Rs. 50,000. It is only High Court of Judicature at Madras, which can try this original suit.

(2.) THE petitioner herein, in view of the fact that so many applications are pending before the X Asst. City Civil J., Madras and also in view of the fact that interests of justice will be well protected if a transfer is made instead of withdrawing the suit from the City Civil Court and presenting it to the Original Side of this court, wants to transfer the suit under Section 24, C. P. Code. This petition is opposed by the respondent herein. Mr. D.K. Srinivasagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that this Court sitting on the Appellate Side has no jurisdiction to transfer the Original Petition to the Original Side of this High Court. Learned counsel also submitted that Section 24 (1) (b) (i), C. P. Code will not apply to the facts of this case. Learned counsel further submitted that there are certain procedures for filing pauper petitions before the Original Side of this court and that by transfer all those formalities will have to be dispensed with. Hence learned counsel suggested that the plaint may be returned by the City Civil Court as provided under Order 7, Rule 10 (1), C.P.C., and the petitioner as well present it before this court.

(3.) I have been taken through the decision in Srirangam Municipality v. Palaniswami Pillai, 1951 -1 Mad LJ 281 : (AIR 1951 Mad 807). In that decision a Bench of this court has categorically held that -