THUMMALA KRISHNA RAO Vs. VALIVELA POORNACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. An interesting question as to the forum of appeal against an order returning a plaint arises in this case.

(2.) The question arises in the following manner, The petitioner be/ore me filed O.S. No. 275 of 1971 in the Principal District Munsif's Court, Vijayawada for rendition of accounts in respect of sale proceeds of sugar cane crop raised in Ac. 21-21 cents. His case was that he and the defendant entered into a partnership for the purpose of raising sugar cane crop on the arrangement that the defendant should raise it and render an account to the plaintiff, each taking half of the net profits. Since he was not in a position to know what the actual expenses of cultivation were or what the actual income was he formally estimated the value of the suit at Rs. 100/-. The defendant in his written statement admitted the raising of the sugar cane crop, but denied the partnership. He claimed that he was merely a sub-lessee under the plaintiff and that he had already paid the amount due to the plaintiff. According to him he had to pay at the rate of Rs. 450/- per acre per year for Ac. 7-25 cents as rent and for the remaining Ac. 13-46 cents at Rs. 425/- per acre per annum, This averment in the written statement shows that the liability of the defendant was in a sum of Rs. 18,000/- A check slip was placed before the court on the basis of this averment in the written statement. Thereupon, the Court accepted the checkslip holding that there could be no possible doubt about the suit being of the value of more than Rs. 18,000. It accordingly returned the plaint for payment of deficit Court fee and presentation of the suit to the proper court.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an appeal against this order in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Vijayawada, which is the court to which appeals from the decrees of the District Munsif's Court, Viijayawada would lie. By his order dated 28th of June, 1972, the learned subordinate judge said ''an appeal does not lie to this court. The unnumbered appeal will be returned for presentation to proper court and will be made available for taking teturn on 7-7-1972 with necessary endorsements." Though it was not specifically stated by the learned Subordinate Judge, the meaning of his order is clear. It is, that the Subordinate Judge's court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a decree or order in respect of a suit, the value of which is more than Rs. 18,000/-. It is against this order the present revision petition had been filed.