CHHIDDU SINGH Vs. JHANJHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which has been argued in this case is whether the Court of first instance had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. THE suit was one for redemption of a mortgage, the principal amount of which was Rs. 960. THE facts of the case have been set forth by us in our order passed to-day upon the question of the amount of Court-fee payable on the plaint. In the plaint the prayer of the plaintiffs was that redemption should be granted upon payment of a portion of the mortgage-money in the alternative it was prayed that the plaintiffs might be allowed to pay the whole of the mortgage-money; and in the third place it was alleged that a surplus amount of Es. 7,000 and odd was due and it was prayed that this amount should be awarded against the defendant-mortgagee. THE plaintiffs themselves, who are the appellants here, took their plaint to the Court of the Munsif in the belief that the Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. THEy allowed the suit to proceed to trial and a decree was passed by the Munsif for redemption upon payment of a certain sum. THEy themselves appealed to the District Judge from the decision of the Munsif, and after the Appellate Court has decided the case and made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for redemption upon payment of a certain sum, they have come to this Court and they urge that the Munsif ought not to have entertained the suit which they themselves instituted in his Court. We think the case is covered by the ruling in Kedar Singh V/s. Matabadal Singh 1 Ind. Cas. 703 : 31 A. 44 : AW.N. (1908) 276 : 5 L.J. 713. It was for the plaintiffs to value the suit and they themselves valued it at Es. 960, the principal amount of the mortgage. With reference to that valuation the suit was cognizable by the Munsif. THEy say that surplus mesne profits were due and they gave an estimate of the amount which they thought was due, but the relief sought in the plaint was that redemption should be granted and an account taken and if, upon the taking of the account, any surplus amount was found due, that surplus should be paid over to them. THE real valuation of the suit was based on the amount of the mortgage, with reference to which Court-fee had to be paid, and it was an ancillary part of the claim that an account should be taken and any amount found due to or by one of the parties should be awarded to the party to whom it was due. That did not alter the nature of the suit and did not increase the value of it. This was the view taken in the case to which we have referred and we are not satisfied that a different view was held in any other case by this Court. It comes with very bad grace from the plaintiffs for them now to contend that they went to a wrong Court and, therefore, all the proceedings which have already been taken in the suit should be quashed and a fresh trial ordered in another Court. We think the appeal is without force and accordingly dismiss it with costs.