SHIOPRASAD Vs. MOHANABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the District Judge, Buldhana in Civil Appeal No. 256/80 on 20-10-1984 directing the plaint in Civil Suit No. 449/78 to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, has been challenged in this revision. By amendment application filed on 15-3-1988, the petitioner also sought an amendment to the prayer clause allowing him to challenge the order passed by the said Court on 3rd October 1984 allowing the amendment to the plaint. The revision memo is accordingly allowed to be amended.

(2.) The respondents happened to be the legal representatives of one Bhairubakas. This Bhairabakas filed Regular Civil Suit No. 449/78 for possession of a field and for mandatory injunction directing the removal of the structure on the suit land and for prohibitory injunction prohibiting the defendants from raising any fresh construction thereon. As far as possession of the field is concerned, it was valued at 20 times the land revenue. As the actual valuation was less than Rs. 5/- minimum Court fee of Rs. 5/- was paid. The reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction were separately valued. We are not much concerned at this stage with the merits involved in that controversy. The claim of the plaintiff Bhairubakas was opposed by the defendants. One of the contentions relevant for the purpose of this revision application was that the suit was not properly valued and the market value of the suit would be at least to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- which ultimately would affect the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

(3.) The parties went to trial on the issues framed by the Court. On merits the learned Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title to the property. On the issue of valuation and competence of the Court, the learned judge held that as there was absolutely no evidence to show that the claim was undervalue, the valuation was proper and was accepted. On these findings, he dismissed the suit. The decree of dismissal came to be passed some time in 1980. Bhairubakas preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court on 5-12-1980 and this appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 256/80. Bhairubakas did not challenge the valuation in the plaint. He prosecuted this appeal till 9-1-1984 when he died. After his death, the present respondents applied on 6-8-1984 for substitution in place of the deceased as his legal representatives. This application was allowed by the trial Court on 15-9-1984. On the very day, these legal representatives filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment application was very exhaustive. A map came to be filed depicting the different portions of the suit property, which included the agricultural and, and other portions of that land allowed to be converted for nonagricultural purpose. Measurements of different parts were given. Demarcation was made. The main part of the amendment was that the land which was converted for nonagricultural purpose was worth at least Rs. 36,000/-. The legal representatives wanted the valuation to be made accordingly and they showed their willingness to pay the Court fees on that. The learned District Judge, by his order dt. 3-10-1984 allowed this application which virtually increased the valuation to Rs. 40,000/-. On amendment of the plaint, the learned Judge proceeded with the appeal on 20-10-1984 and he passed the order directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Virtually what has been held by the District Judge was that because of the valuation of the claim at Rs. 40.000/-, the Court which tried the matter and passed the decree was not competent as far as the pecuniary jurisdiction was concerned.