AMBADAS HARIRAO KARANTE Vs. VISHNU GOVIND BORAMANIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. by the decree- holder applicant against the order of the Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur, dismissing the darkhast on the ground that the decree sought to be executed was passed by a Court beyond jurisdiction, and was, therefore, a nullity. The proceedings in the original suit are not before us. But it is admitted that the suit was properly instituted in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge without objection or challenge by the opponents-defendants judgment-debtors. The parties tendered terms of compromise, and a decree was passed accordingly under Order 23, Rule 3, for an amount of Rs. 5,700. How this excess valuation of Rs. 700 arose, there is nothing before us to show. The Subordinate Judge in execution held, on the authorities as he understood them, that this very fact sufficed to render the decree a nullify for want of jurisdiction.

(2.) This view is sought to be supported for the opponents in this Court on the authority of cases such as Rajlakshmi Dasee V/s. Katyayani Dasee [1910] 38 Cal. 639 and Hirjibhai v. Jamshedji [1913] 15 Bom. L.R. 1021. Diwan Bahadur Rao for the applicant relies, on the other hand, on the principles of decisions such as Lakshman Bhatkar V/s. Babaji Bhatkar [1883] 8 Bom. 31 and Shamrav Pandoji V/s. Niloji Ramaji [1895] 10 Bom. 200.

(3.) On the materials such as they are, it is clear that the plaintiff's valuation was not challenged in the first instance by the defendants or questioned by the Court. Nor in the two previous darkkasts did the judgment-debtors raise the present question of jurisdiction. We are unable to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the mere fact that the decree was for an amount of Rs. 5,700 and was passed by the Second Class Subordinate Judge was ipso facto proof that it was beyond jurisdiction and a nullity. For instance, if a suit has commenced within the jurisdiction and by the addition of mesne profits after the date of institution the amount is increased to an amount beyond the jurisdiction, a decree for the full amount is nevertheless, perfectly valid and with jurisdiction. The jurisdiction in the first instance is, determined under the Bombay Civil; Courts Act by the valuation in the plaint and not by the result of the decree, whatever it might turn out to be. It is true that deliberate and mala fide undervaluation or over-valuation might cause the decree to be a nullity, as in the case above, Rajlakshmi Dasee V/s. Katyayani Dasee [1910] 38 Cal. 639.