NARAYAN JHA NARONE Vs. JOGNI PRASAD JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of the Santal Parganas allowing an appeal from the Subordinate Judge on the preliminary point that the suit was by reason of its valuation outside the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge and was only triable by the Court of the Deputy Collector under the Santal Parganas Act (No. 37 of 1855). The District Judge rejected the plaint with the intimation that it should be presented in that Court, The plaint alleged that the defendants were tenants under a lease of a house belonging to the plaintiffs; that the lease had expired; that the defendants refused to leave the demised premises; that a sum of Rs. 72 was owing to the plaintiffs in respect of the last two years of the tenancy as rent and a further sum of Rs. 22 as damages.

(2.) The plaintiffs claimed ejectment decree for Rs. 94 and further damages at the rata of Rs. 2 per diem from the date of the suit till ejectment. A court-fee of Rs. 10-8-0 was paid (on the sum of Rs. 94), but the plaint stated that as the suit related to property worth Rs. 2,000 it was valued at Rs. 2,094 for the purposes of jurisdiction. The written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed title to the house in question. There was no plea that the Court of the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction; but the defendants alleged that the court fee paid was insufficient. Four issues were settled, viz: (1) Is the suit maintainable? (2) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of issues? (3) Is the court-fee sufficient? (4) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant? The Judge heard evidence and decided every issue in favour of the plaintiffs. He said that the question of valuation was not framed before the framing of the issues and that Section 11, Suits Valuation Act, prevented the defendant from raising it at a later stage and refused to go into this matter.

(3.) The defendants appealed to the District Judge. It was argued by the defendants that the Subordinate Judge had tried the suit without jurisdiction having reference to the terms of Section 9, Regn. 5,1893, read with Act 37 of 1855, inasmuch as the subject matter of the dispute was not Rs. 2,094, but Rs. 94 only. The plaintiffs argued that their suit was one for recovery of possession and that the value of the property in dispute was the value of the house. The Judge felt himself in some difficulty. The proviso to Section 2, Santal Parganas Act, is as follows: Provided that all civil suits in which the matter in dispute shall exceed the value of one thousand rupees shall be tried and determined according to the general laws and regulations in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed.