SRI RAJAH NAYANI VENKATA RANGA RAO BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU Vs. SRI RAJAH TADAKAMALLA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order giving findings on three preliminary issues in a suit for an in-juaction restraining the defendant from doing certain acts with reference to his tanks over which the plaintiff claims a right of easement. The three issues are as follows: 1. Whether the suit claim is not cognizable and triable by the municipal Courts and whether the same is determinable only by treaty between the British Government and H. E. H. the Nizam's Government. 2. Whether any cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and whether this Court has jurisdiction. 3. Whether the reliefs are properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction and has this Court pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit.

(2.) In order to determine these issues, it is necessary first to have a clear idea of the true nature of the plaint. The plaint as originally framed sought an injunction restraining the defendant from diverting the water flowing out of his tanks and from increasing the full tank level of those tanks, an injunction restraining him from diverting water to a newly dug channel, an injunction restraining him from closing the surplus weirs and diverting the water through a new canal into another tank and lastly a fixation of the full tank levels and the levels of the weirs of a number of the defendant's tanks. There was a long-fought battle on the court-fee question as affecting the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court in which the suit was filed. After the case had come up twice to this Court in revision, it was finally decided by the order of Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J., in C.R.P. No. 1318 of 1937 that the last prayer relating to the fixation of the levels had been properly deleted from the plaint and that the District Munsif would have to consider the question of jurisdiction on the footing of the plaint as thus amended.

(3.) It seems to me that this finally decides the question regarding the necessity for valuirlg the suit on the basis of the averments in the plaint as to the necessity for fixing the levels of the defendant's tanks. It is, however, contended for the first time in this Court that though the plaintiff has not prayed for a declaration of his right of easement, the suit is in substance one for a declaration and injunction and should be valued under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act and not under Section 7(iv)(d) and it is desirable to decide this contention in the first instance. For, if Section 7(iv)(c) applies and a declaration is in substance and of necessity sought, the case would undoubtedly fall outside the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court, for the easements claimed operate over a large number of tanks and the injunctions sought will, according to the averments in the plaint, affect the income of the defendant to the extent of thousands of rupees annually, whereas the refusal of the injunction would have a proportionately adverse effect on the income of the plaintiff. Moreover, the decision of the question regarding the necessity for a declaration of the plaintiff's right has a material bearing on the first issue regarding the jurisdiction of the British Indian Court to try the suit.