MUTHAYYAN SWAMINATHA SASTRIAL Vs. SNARAYANASWAMI SASTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise-the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, dated 24 January 1935, in C. M. A. No. 15 of 34, setting aside an order of the District Munsif of Valangiman, returning the plaint in-; O.S. No. 6 of 34 for presentation to the proper Court.

(2.) The suit was for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 9 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint properties. It was alleged that the properties were Samudayam properties owned by the mirasdars of the village, that plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant 10 were appointed as managers for the properties, that the other plaintiffs were lessees under those managers and that defendants 2 to 9 were interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants denied those allegations and contended that plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant 10 were not appointed managers in respect of those properties. The learned District Munsif, holding that the suit was in effect to have the right of plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant 10 as managers in respect of these properties declared, directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by adding a prayer for a declaration to that effect and to pay additional court-fee. The plaint was accordingly amended, but no additional court-fee was paid. As the learned District Munsif found that the plaint as amended was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, he returned it for presentation to the proper Court. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge that order was, as already observed, reversed, the Subordinate Judge holding that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to add a prayer for declaration and that the suit as originally framed was maintainable. The trial Court was, therefore, directed to re-entertain the suit; hence this petition.

(3.) On the merits, I have no doubt that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the suit as originally framed was maintainable. It is true that in establishing their right to have an injunction against the defendants, the plaintiffs will have to prove that plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant 10 were properly appointed managers in respect of the properties and that the other plaintiffs are the lessees under them. But it does not follow from this that the plaintiffs are suing for a declaration of the title of plaintiffs 1 to i and defendant 10 as managers. Their allegation is that they are in lawful possession of the properties and that their possession is threatened to be interfered with by the defendants. On these allegations, they were perfectly entitled to sue for a mere injunction. The learned District Munsif was, therefore, wrong in ordering the amendment of the plaint.