VISHNU Vs. JAWAHER MALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the Appellants before us. The brief facts relating to this case are that the suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for possession of the suit lands on the allegation that these properties were mortgaged with them, by Defendants 1 and 2 with possession; that subsequent to the mortgage these lands were taken on lease by Defendants 3 and 4. The Plaintiffs prayed that a decree be passed in their favour for possession of the suit and tor Rs. 400/ - on account, of the lease amount for a period of three years. The Plaintiffs valued their suit for the purposes of. jurisdiction at an aggregate value of Rs. 400/ -, Rs. 300/ - representing the amount due from the lessees on account of the lease amount and Rs. 100/ - being the annual lease amount, the suit being treated as a suit to eject the lessees. The Defendants raised the objection that the suit could not be treated as a suit against the lessees based upon the lease deeds executed by Defendants 3 and 4 but must be treated as a suit for specific performance to get possession of the mortgaged property which the Plaintiffs were entitled to under the mortgage. The Defendants, therefore, contended that the suit should be valued according to the mortgage amount viz. Rs. 2900/ -. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the respective parties came to the conclusion that the suit should be treated as a suit for possession of land paying revenue and, therefore, valued the suit at ten times the revenue payable to the Government, that is to say, at Rs. 880/ - and called upon the Plaintiffs to pay the deficit court -fee. This order was passed on 7th Awarded 1347 F. The Plaintiffs carried out the orders of the Court and paid the deficit court -fee. When the case came on for arguments the Plaintiffs' Vakil made a statement that the Plaintiffs were giving up their claim for the lease amount, for three years, which they had claimed in their suit. The statement of the Plaintiffs' Vakil was recorded in the proceedings and final arguments were heard. The suit was decreed by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The Defendants have now appealed against the above decrees.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the Appellants has confined his argument to the question of law arising in the case as to whether it was open to the Plaintiffs to have relinquished a portion of their claim at the stage of the arguments. His next contention is that on the date when the suit was filed the claim of the Plaintiffs was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. We have considered about the matter and we are of opinion that the contentions of the learned advocate are well founded. The jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court at Kannad was Rs. 1,000/ - on the date of the institution of the suit and after the finding given by the Court on 7th Awarded 1347 F. the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction became Rs. 1180/ - (Rs. 880 plus 300/ -), which was decidedly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction, of the Munsiff Court, so that the short point is whether, where at the institution ; of the suit the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction over the subject -matter of the suit, it would get jurisdiction by reason of the plain -'' tiffs relinquishing any portion of the claim so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. So far as this point is concerned, Order 2, R. 2(1), Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: