TRIUMALA BHASKARA RAO NAIDU Vs. PANASA NARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed only on the point of limitation by the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in his judgment dated 31 -10 -1949. The cause of action for the suit of the plaintiff is an order dated 2 -10 -1943 passed under the provisions of Section 145, Criminal P. C. The plaintiff is a purchaser of the disputed property described in the schedule of the plaint in a sale held in execution of a decree obtained in a suit before the District Munsif of Berhampur, the judgment -debtor being one Saketi - Boddu. The date of plaintiff's purchase is 21 -1 -1936. The plaintiff also took delivery of possession through Court on 12 -5 -1936. The disputed lands being Government zeroyati lands, the plaintiff claims to have paid revenue or cist to the Government ever since the date of his purchase and that he was in possession of the disputed property. According to the version of the plaintiff, his tenants raised crops in the year 1941; but defendant 2 who is the husband of defendant 1 cut and removed away the crops on 21 -6 -1941 from a portion of the lands with the help of some other persons. Thereafter proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were started at the instance of the plaintiff, but nevertheless it culminated against him. So the present suit.

(2.) THE suit was, in the first instance, filed before the Munsif at Berhampur on 28 -9 -1946 shortly before the expiry of the three years' period of limitation from the date of the order under Section 145, Criminal P. C. (Ex. 9). The suit being one for recovery of possession and the disputed lands being Government zeroyati lands, the plaintiff's Advocate Sri G. Raghab Rao of Berhampur valued the suit on the basis of ten times of the cist paid which came upto Rs. 139/6. The plaintiff further claimed a sum of Rs. 860/10 as mesne profits for three years preceding the date of the suit. The total valuation for the purpose of court -fee was Rs. 1000/ -. The learned advocate who appeared for the plaintiff in the trial Court filed the suit before the Munsif as in his opinion the value for the purpose of Court fee was the same as the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in this case.

(3.) THE learned Munsif tried the preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that the suit had been grossly undervalued for both purposes, that is, for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction, and returned the plaint on 9 -7 -1948 to be filed in the proper Court.