MAMIDALA SURYAKANTAMMA Vs. THUMMALA VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. 120 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Peddapuram, was a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint schedule lands, alleged to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In the plaint it was alleged that the second defendant was a tenant under the first defendant cultivating the lands. The agreement of sale on which the plaintiff relied is dated 25/02/1959. It was further alleged in the plaint that the first defendant in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, colluded with the second defendant, who is her mothers sisters son, and brought into existence an agreement to sell the suit lands to the second defendant. It is on these allegations the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 25-2-1959. The relief asked for was also for possession of the suit lands not only against the first defendant but also against the second defendant.

(2.) The first defendant pleaded that the suit was not properly valued and the court fee was not properly paid. It was urged by the first defendant that though court fee was paid for specific performance of the agreement on the consideration for which the sale was to be effected, still since possession was asked for against the second defendant also who is in actual physical possession of the land the plaintiff has further to value the suit as one for possession also and pay court fee thereon.

(3.) This objection was upheld by the trial Court. It found that if the suit is valued as contended for by the defendant, it would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsifs Court. Therefore the trial Court ordered that the plaint for be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court.