SIMADRI PANDA Vs. DURGASI CHINA APPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking inter alia to raise the valuation of the suit. His application having been allowed and the valuation of the suit after amendment being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation in the proper Court. In the appeal of defendant numbers 2 and 3, the order of the trial court was set aside. The plaintiff is in revision before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit land nor were they in possession and he also sought the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was, however, valued at Rs. 100/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. After defendants 2, 3 and 4, filed their written statements claiming title through purchase under certain registered sale deeds, the petitioner (plaintiff) filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint He impugned the title of the vendors of the defendants and sought the relief of confirmation of possession alternatively of recovery of possession. In view of the altered nature of the reliefs the plaintiff sought to value the suit, at Rs. 2800/-. The amendment having been allowed, the valuation of the suit got raised to Rs. 2800/- and the learned Munsif holding that the suit after amendment was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, directed the plaint to be returned for presentation in the proper court.

(3.) The defendants 2 and 3 challenged the order in appeal. Their contention before the learned Subordinate Judge was that a court should not permit amendment of the plaint which would entail the loss of pecuniary jurisdiction by itself. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance was placed upon the case of Satti Ramana v. Padala Amireddi (AIR 1931 Mad 67) and the case of Mst. Zohra Khatoon v. Janab Mohammad Jane Alam (AIR 1978 Cal 133). In the case reported in AIR 1931 Mad 67, (supra) the suit was for a declaration that certain lease deeds executed by the plaintiff and some other defendants in favour of defendant No. 1 were fraudulent and invalid and for dissolution of partnership and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was valued at Rs. 100/-. An objection to the valuation having been raised, it was held that the valuation should be Rupees 56,919/2/3 ps. in addition to another sum of Rs. 2318/6/0. The court then directed that the plaintiff should pay court fee on the aforesaid amounts before the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff having failed to pay the court fee, the court rejected the plaint. In such circumstances, their Lordships of the Madras High Court held:--