Khetpal And Ors vs Birbal Ram And Ors

This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (a) CPC is directed against the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, the trial court on account of pecuniary jurisdiction has ordered for return of plaint to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs - appellants filed suit for specific performance in relation to agreement of sale dated 24.04.1974 executed between Girdhari Ram, father / grandfather of appellants No. 1 to 6 & Lekhram and agreements dated 13.06.1986 executed by Girdhari Ram in favour of plaintiff Nos.7 & 8.

The suit was valued by clubbing the consideration indicated in all the three agreements i.e. Rs. 1,05,000/- in agreement dated 24.04.1974, Rs. 2,43,000/- each qua the agreements dated 13.06.1986 and based on the valuation, the suit was filed before the court of Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh.

At the time of registration of the suit, the trial court heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that as the basic agreement dated 24.04.1974 between Lekhram and Girdhari Ram was for Rs. 1,45,000/- only, the pecuniary jurisdiction lies within the court of Civil Judge and that the amount of subsequent agreements cannot be clubbed for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and consequently, ordered for return of the plaint.

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the trial court was not justified in returning the plaint, inasmuch as, the frame of the suit was such wherein on account of agreements dated 13.06.1986 in favour of plaintiffs No.7 and 8, they were also entitled to maintain suit against legal representatives of Lekhram and, therefore, the value of all the three agreements were required to be clubbed for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Submissions were also made that the trial court was not justified at the stage of registration of the suit to make observations as have been made in the order impugned, on that count also the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the dispute qua the land in question already stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, the plaintiffs have no cause.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

As noticed hereinbefore, the suit was filed seeking specific performance of agreement dated 24.04.1974 executed by Lekhram in favour of Girdhari Ram and the suit on account of passage of time was filed by the legal representatives of Girdhari Ram - palintiffs No. 1 to 6 against legal representaives of Lekh Ram.

After the agreement was executed on 24.04.1974, it appears from the averments made in the plaint that on 13.06.1986, a part of the land i.e 16 Bigha 4 Biswa was transferred by Girhdari Ram to plaintiff No.7 and another 16 Bigha 4 Biswa was transferred to plaintiff No.8 on the same date i.e. 13.06.1986. In the suit, by indicating the said facts regarding the agreement dated 24.04.1974 and agreements dated 13.06.1986 relief was claimed against the defendants.

A perusal of the relief claimed indicates that the plaintiffs have sought specific performance of all the three agreements, however, admittedly, insofar as, the agreements dated 13.06.1986 are concerned, they are not between the plaintiffs No.7 and 8 and the defendants and, therefore, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that merely because the plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 / their predecessor has entered into subsequent agreement to sale and has sought relief, the same cannot be used for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that as the agreements of year 1986 were part of the same transaction, the plea could be raised and relief could be claimed apparently has no substance. The fact that the plaintiffs chosen to enter into agreement to sale qua the part of the land cannot be termed as part of the same transaction, so as to make the submission as made on the strength of provisions of Order I Rule 1 CPC.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the order impugned passed by the trial court is made out. The appeal has not substance the same is, therefore, dismissed.