ARJUN RAM KESARI Vs. SHEO CHARAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by defendant No. 3, the appellant in the court of appeal below is directed against an order of that court returning the memorandum of the title appeal on the ground that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction over the same. The facts of the case are very complex and in order to ascertain the ' same I had to look into the original records and the various interlocutory orders passed in the case on different occasions, some of which were brought to this court as well.

(2.) The suit was originally filed by Yogmaya Devi in the court of the Munsif, Giridih, in the year 1963, and on her death, her heirs and legal representatives were substituted, who are opposite party Nos. 7 to 15. The suit was filed against Narsingh Halwai and his son-in-law Bhuneshwar Halwai for a declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to a house situated in the town of Giridih. The value of the suit originally given was Rs. 2,000/-, but subsequently the same was raised from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,100/- and the plaint was returned by the Munsif for presentation before the proper court and, thereafter, it was filed in the court of the subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, on 18-11-1965. On the death of defendant No. 1, his daughter Shrimati Rekhamani Devi ( Opposite Party No. 16) was substituted. On 11-9-1967, a compromise petition was filed in the suit and thereby the share of the plaintiffs was determined to the extent of -/11/- annas and that of the defendants to the extent of -/5/- annas in the disputed house. Earlier to that, by an agreement for sale dated 21-8-1967, the plaintiffs and the aforesaid defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are said to have agreed to sell their respective shares to Shrimati' Uma Devi alias Parwati Devi, wife of Sheo Charan Ram (Opposite Party No. 1 and Shrimati Naurangi Devi (Opposite Party No, 6) wife of Banshi Ham for Rs. 13,500/- and Rs. 6,500/- respectively, thereby fixing the total valuation of the whole house at Rs. 20,000/-. The original plaintiffs in pursuance of this agreement also executed a sale deed on 24-11-1967, but the defendants did not; rather defendant No. 1 filed an objection to the recording of the compromise on various grounds. An elaborate enquiry was held by the trial court and ultimately by it order dated 12-2-1969, an order for recording of the compromise was passed. The plaint was thereafter amended and the aforesaid purchasers got themselves substituted as plaintiffs and prayed for a relief for specific performance of the contract for sale against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the extent of their -/5/- annas interest in the suit house.

(3.) In the meantime a further development took place. The house in question was sold in execution of a decree obtained by the Giridih Municipality for arrears of taxes and was purchased by the petitioner for Rs. 1,050/- only on 16-1-1971. The plaint was again amended and the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 3 and a further relief was brought in the plaint for setting aside the aforesaid court sale. The value of the suit was fixed at Rs. 7,800/- in the following manner: