ISHWARAPPA MALLESHAPPA MANVI Vs. DHANJI BHANJI GUJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this casa the plaintiff filed suit No. 72 of 1925 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Gadag against the opponents-defendants for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. On July 81,1926, a preliminary decree was passed dissolving the partnership and ordering accounts.

(2.) It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that on September 6, 1926, the parties entered into a compromise and made an application to the Court praying that a decree in terms of the compromise be passed. The terms of the compromise are said to be that opponent No. 1 was to pay Rs. 6,000 and opponent No. 2's father Rs. 5,000 to the applicant. The learned Subordinate Judge being of opinion that he could not pass a decree exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court, ordered the plaint to be returned to the applicant for presentation to the proper Court.

(3.) Three years afterwards the present plaintiff, who was a minor and attained majority on November 29, 1928, made an application on September 3,1929, to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar praying that a decree might be passed in terms of the compromise. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge relying on the decisions in the cases of Lakahman Bhat-kar V/s. Babaji Bhatkar (1883) I.L.R. 8 Bom. 31, Mahabir Singh V/s. Behari Lal (1891) I.L.R. 13 All. 329, and Madho Das V/s. Ramji Patak (1894) I.L.R. 16 All. 286, held that it was the plaintiffs valuation in the plaint which fixed the jurisdiction of the Court and not the amount eventually found due and decreed by the Court. He, therefore, was of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to pass a final decree in the case, and, therefore, rejected the application ; but instead of ordering the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court, directed that the plaint be returned to the Gadag Court together with the compromise purshis.