DHARM RAO Vs. KISHANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S. No. 49 of 1962 on the file of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad was originally filed in the Court of Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad and was numbered as O.S. 444 of 1958 though it is stated that it was filed in October, 1957 itself, It is doubtful whether the year was 1957 or 1958 because I find that the date of the plaint is 19/10/1957. There are five defendants in the suit, The suit is by the plaintiff. Kishan Chand, for a decree declaring him to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit lands and also for issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their representatives etc., from interfering with the plaintiffs, possession in the suit lands in any manner. The suit was valued at Rs.1,000.00 (O.S.) and a Court-fee of Rs.112.007-0 (O.S.) was paid. Defendants 1 to 3 claimed the suit properties and also claimed that they are in possession of the same. They claimed under a sale deed executed in their favour by the 4th defendant who, it is stated, has purchased the same from the 5th defendant.

(2.) For some reason which is not clear from the record placed before me, the trial of the suit has not been taken up till now. In the year 1962. after the re-organisation of the Courts in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the suit was transferred by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad to the Court of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad. It seems the lower Court i.e., the Court of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad, recorded the entire evidence and arguments were also heard. During the course of the arguments the Advocate for the plaintiffs filed a petition, I.A. No. 25 of 1965, under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code on 9/1/1965 praying to amend the plaint by asking for relief of possession of the suit properties in the alternative if the Court holds that the plaintiff is not in possession of the properties. In that, he stated that the value for the relief of possession was the market value as on the date when the suit was originally filed in the year 1957 that is at Rs.8.00 per square yard, the total area being about 1,688 square yards. Thus, the total value for the relief of possession comes to Rs.13,504..00 The Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad had got jurisdiction to try suits up to the value of Rs.50,000..00

(3.) The amendment was allowed. Thereafter the learned Advocate appearing for the defendants contended that the value of the property, as on the date of the amendment, should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the jurisdictional value of the suit and, if it is so taken, the value exceeds the pecuniary juriidiction of the Court of the Third Additional Judge which is up to a limit of Rs.50,000..00 According to defendants 1 to 3, each square yard is to be valued at Rs.50..00 If so valued, the total value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower Court the stand taken on behalf of the plaintiff was that, once the amendment is allowed, the amendment relates back to the date of the original presentation of the plaint and the value has to be determined as on the date when the plaint was originally presented namely, Rs.8.00 per square yard. On that basis, it was submitted to the lower Court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.