SIDRAMAPPA Vs. SANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition raises essentially a question of jurisdiction. The point for determination is, whether the District Munsif, Zaheerabad did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit as brought, it may be noted, is for possession of five items of land bearing S. Nos. 33, 40/2, 78/1, 78/2 and 78/3 and also for past mesne profits in a sum of Rs. 600. The value of the lands as assessed by the plaintiff in his plaint was only Rs. 2,500. On the objection raised by the defendant, the learned District Munsif after due enquiry found that having regard to their location and fertility their market value must be assessed at Rs. 5,560 at the rate of Rs. 400 per acre. Accordingly he directed the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in Court-fee, payable under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valu- ation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as an Act). As a result of the above finding, a further question that arose for determination was, whether, having regard to the said value and the extent of mesne profits claimed, the suit is within the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the District Munsif. The learned District Munsif held that it was well within his jurisdiction because the value of the suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction is the same as that for computing the court-fees as enjoined by Section 50 of the Act and that the value thus worked out does not exceed a sum of Rs. 5,000. This finding of the learned District Munsif is called in question in this proceeding by the defendant- petitioner. A further ground also was raised in the petition against the correctness of the market value assessed by the Court but no argument has been advanced in that behalf probably in view of the provisions of Section 11(3)(a) of the Act. The whole controversy thus centred round the question of jurisdiction alone.

(2.) It is urged that it is not the 3/4ths of the market value which is taken into account for purposes of court-fee in suits of this nature but only the full market- value of the subject-matter that would determine the jurisdiction of the Court. It is also urged that if Section 50 of the Act is capable of a different construction it must yield to the clear intendment to the above effect of the provision of Section 6 of the C. P. C. which is a Central Act.

(3.) We may state at once that this argument is unsustainable as it proceeds on a fallacious basis that there is a conflict or inconsistency between Section 6 C. P. C. and Section 50 of the Act. Section 6 C. P. C. reads thus: