RAMCHANDRA Vs. SRIKISHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the applicants against an order dated 11 -12 -1975 passed by the District Judge Mandla, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.4 of 1975.

(2.) FACTS leading to the present revision are that non -applicants 1 to 8 obtained a decree for Rs.4591/ - with costs amounting to Rs.831 -65 against non -applicants 9 to 17 from the Court of Civil Judge Class II. Jabalpur. The said decree was transferred for execution to the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Dindori. In the execution proceedings, suit property was attached. The applicants preferred an objection under Order 21 rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 4 -4 -1968, the executing Court allowed the objection and released the property from attachment. Thereafter, non -applicants 1 to 8 filed the present suit under Order 21, rule 63 of the Code in the Court of Civil Judge Class I. Mandla and valued the same at Rs.8000/ -. The applicants raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court contending inter alia that the valuation of the suit should be the valuation of the decree and which being below Rs.5000/ -.the suit would be triable by Civil Judge. Class II, Dindori, who was the executing Court. The objection was allowed and the Civil Judge Class I, Mandla, returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Dindori vide the order dated 7 -1 -1974. Against that order non -applicants 1 to 8 preferred an appeal before the District Judge. Mandla, under order 41 rule 1 (a) of the Code. The lower appellate Court has set aside the order of the trial Court and hence the applicants have come up in the present revision.

(3.) I now proceed to answer the point raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. It is well settled now that in a suit under Order 21, rule 63 of the Code where the property involved is of larger value than the amount due under the decree that the decree amount should determine the value of the suit, But where the value of the property is smaller it is that, that should be the touch -stone for determination of the jurisdiction. To say in other words where the decreetal amount is larger and the market value of the property involved is smaller, then the market value of the properly determines the value of the suit. In other case it is the decreetal amount. In this connection I may simply make a reference to some of the decisions, namely, Phul Kumari V. Ghansham Miua [ILR 55 Cal 202 (PC)]. Radhabai v. Madhorao and others [1944 NLJ 306], Smt. Tejabai v. Gram Panchayat Kaudia. [LPA No, 24 of 1960 decided on 24 -8 -1961, reported In 1961 MPLJ Note 273], S. Ranganatha Iyengar v. T.A. Subramanian Chettiar [AIR 1955 Mad 402] and Nandlal Singh and another v. Mst. Baratan and others [AIR 1960 Pat 82].