GAJRAMJI JASRAMJI MAHARAJ Vs. SOMNATH BHUDARDAS SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1 in a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the suit house belonged to a religious institution of the members of a sect known as Ramdwara sect, that it was public or private religious property, but that it was not in any case the private property of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from acting against the established usage of the institution, and there was a further prayer for accounts for moneys received from the tenants of the institution and other persons. There was also a prayer for accounts of the management of the suit property in possession of the defendant as a trustee for the institution. It must be noted here that the sanction of the Collector was not obtained under Section 92 of the Civil Pro- cedure Code for filing the suit.

(2.) THE defendant denied that the suit property belonged to the institution. His contention was that it was his private property and that the plaintiffs had no right to bring the suit.

(3.) AGAINST this decree defendant No.1 has appealed to this Court. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that the appeal lies to the District Court and not to this Court. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge. It was valued at Rs. 200 for the relief of declaration for which a court fee stamp of Rs. 15 was paid and at Rs. 5 for each of the reliefs 2, 3, 4 and 5 The total valuation was thus Rs. 220 and the Court fee of Rs. 16-8-0 was paid thereon. It appears that after the suit was filed, the plaintiffs applied for amendment of their claim, and one of the amendments which they sought was by way of amending the relief clause which they sought to re-value at a nominal sum of Rs. 200 for which a fixed Court fee of Rs. 15 was paid. The remaining reliefs were valued at Rs. 5 each as originally. The defendant in his written statement contended among other things that the value of the suit house was over Rs. 10,000 and that therefore the Second Class Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the suit, and as the defendant was holding the property 5 by an independent title, the plaintiffs should pay full stamp according to the value of the property as in a suit for possession. The learned Judge disposed of the objection made by the defendant and made an endorsement on the plaint that Article 17 of schedule II of the Court-fees Act read with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act governed the plaint as amended by the plaintiffs, that the value of the property in dispute therefore governed the jurisdiction of the Court, and as its value was admittedly Rs. 10,000, he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He therefore directed that the plaint should be sent to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge. It was accordingly sent to that Court and the suit was heard by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge without objection on the part of any of the parties. It is now contended that the suit, even after the plaint was amended, falls under Section 7(iv)(c) as well as (f) of the Court-fees Act inasmuch as it is for a declaration coupled with the relief for injunction as well as accounts, and that under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the valuation for the Court fees determines the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. Therefore, a Second Class Subordinate Judge only would have the jurisdiction to hear the suit, with the result that even though it was heard by the First Class Subordinate Judge, the appeal against his decree would lie to the District Court and not to this Court.