JOSE ANTONIO BARRETO Vs. FRANCISCO ANTONIO RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents as plaintiffs filed Suit No. 48 of 1908 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Thana, for a partition of the property in dispute. In their plaint the market value stated was such as to make the suit triable only by the First Class Subordinate Judge. That Judge made over the trial of the suit to the Joint Subordinate Judge at Thana. He had no jurisdiction to try it, if the market value stated in the plaint was correct. Neither party raised any objection on the ground of jurisdiction; no issue was raised relating to it. So the trial proceeded on the merits and the Joint Subordinate Judge, after taking evidence on the issues raised, passed a decree for partition in favour of the present respondents.

(2.) The appellants on appeal to the District Court raised for the first time the question of jurisdiction on the strength of the market value stated in the plaint. That Court overruled the objection on the ground that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act (No. VII of 1887), furnished a bar to it, and that the record showed that " the undervaluation (?), if any, had not prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on the merits ".

(3.) In this second appeal the objection has been renewed, and, in support of it Ramayya V/s. Subbarayudn (1889) I.L.R. 13 Mad. 25 is cited. That decision, no doubt, supports the contention. But the principle governing the question of jurisdiction in such cases is laid down by our Court in several cases, of which the leading authority is Lakshman Bhatkar V/s. Babaji Bhatkar (1883) I.L.E. 8 Bom. 31. There it was said :--"What prima facie determines the jurisdiction is the claim or subject-matter of the claim as estimated by the plaintiff and, this determination having given the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction itself continues, whatever the extent of the suit, unless a different principle comes into operation to prevent such a result or to make the proceedings from the first abortive."