MARAPPA GOUNDER Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengodu, returning the plaint for presentation in proper Court on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court. The revision petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance of the contract valuing the suit at Rs. 10,530 under Sec. 42 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. He has also sought for the relief of injunction against the defendant to restrain her from alienating the suit property for which Court-fee has been paid under Sec. 27(c) of the Court-fees Act. Later, the plaint was amended for the recovery of possession of the property after demolition of the superstructure alleged to have been put up subsequent to the filing of the suit. The contention of the defendant was that after the suit, she has improved the suit property by making alterations at a cost of Rs. 1,54,000 and the valuation of the suit property at Rs. 10,530 is not proper and as the value of the suit exceeds Rs. 15,000.00 the suit was not maintainable before the District Munsif. The learned District Munsif, accepting this contention of the defendant, has held that the value of the suit properly exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and therefore he was returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. Hence this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. Nisar Ahmed contended that though the sale agreement was for Rs. 25,000 in respect of the larger area, this suit is filed only in respect of a smaller extent which has been valued at Rs. 10,530.00 according to the price in the sale agreement and as the plaintiff seeks the relief of specific performance and recovery of possession of the vacant site, the value under Sec. 42 of the Court-fees Act can be the amount of consideration in the contract of sale, in which manner this suit has been valued and therefore the return of the plaint by the learned District Munsif is not according to law. On a reading of the order of the learned District Munsif, I find that he was satisfied with the value of the suit property at more than Rs. 15,000 for the reason that the Commissioner has found the existence of the building in the suit property and even according to the plaintiff, the value of the building itself is more than Rs. 15,000 and therefore the valuation of the suit must be beyond Rs. 15,000.00.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. krishnaraju contended that when the suit is based on an agreement dated 2-1-85 for a sale consideration of Rupees 25,000.00 the suit should have been valued only at Rs. 25,000.00 the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale agreement. According to the learned counsel, even though the suit has been filed for a lesser extent of the property mentioned in the sale agreement as held in Dullabho Sahoo Vs. Adinarayana, AIR 1937 Madras 831 , the suit has to be valued for the entire sale consideration mentioned in the agreement and therefore in this case even according to the sale agreement, as the sale price agreed is Rs. 25,000.00 which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Mansif, Tiruchengode, the suit is not maintainable. He would also contend that even if the value of the superstructure put up is taken into consideration, as the relief of demolition of the building is sought for, the value of the suit exceeds, Rs. 15,000.00and therefore the learned District Munsif was right in returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court.