M. Thangavelu vs Perumayee and Others

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—Aggrieved over the order of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, endorsed in the compromise memo filed in

O.S.No.286 of 2005 dated 17.11.2005 this civil revision petition has been filed.

2.Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 14 for partition. He valued the suit at Rs. 95,000/- as per the value of 1/20 share for

which he is entitled. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a compromise memo. By virtue of the compromise

memo the plaintiff paid money to each of the defendants who have released their shares in favour of the plaintiff. As per the compromise memo the

first defendant received a total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The said amount is payable to herself as well as the defendants 4 to 14.

The learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal passed an impugned order on 17.11.2005 stating that according to the compromise memo

the value of the suit comes to Rs. 19 lakhs, but the jurisdiction of the court is only one lakh and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the

compromise and the compromise memo may be filed in appropriate court.

Aggrieved over the same, this civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner.

Mr.Yamunan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that once the suit is numbered it is for the court to take

up the compromise memo filed in the suit and pass orders and the court cannot refuse to entertain the compromise memo on the ground of

pecuniary jurisdiction based on the subsequent events.

As far as this case is concerned the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession of the property and therefore the plaintiff has, as per the

plaint, valued the suit at Rs. 95,000/-. The total value of the property including the shares of the defendants comes to Rs. 19,00,000/-.

Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955 reads as follows:

In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint

possession of such property, fee shall be paid at the following rates:

When the plaint is presented to:

(i) a District Munsif''s Court : Rupees one hundred

(ii)the City Civil Court, : Rupees one hundred,

Chennai at a Sub-Court if the plaintiff''s

or a District Court share is rupees thirty

thousand or less, rupees

five hundred, if it is

above rupees thirty

thousand but below

rupees one lakh and

rupees seven hundred

and fifty, if the

value is rupees one

lake and above.

(iii) The High Court : Rupees one thousand

In this case there is also a specific allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff is in joint possession with the defendants and accordingly the suit was

valued.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service a Full Court judgement reported in A.I.R.1937 Rang 320 (A.K.A. C.T.V.

Chidambaram Chettiar v. A.L.P.R.S. Muthia Chettiar) wherein it has been held as follows:

In a suit for accounts the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is governed by the value of the suit as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint and not by the

amount which may be found and decreed by the court. Therefore a decree can be passed when an amount has been ascertained even though that

is in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court

The learned Counsel relied on a judgement in the case of C. Muthuvel Pillai v. Hazarath Syed Shamian Sakkah Saheb Kadhiri Thaikkal

represented by Trustee reported in Madras Law Journal, Reports (1974) 99 wherein this court held as follows:

In a suit for recovery of possession of a site, the fixing of the price of the superstructure put up on the site by the lessee is only a consequential

remedy to the relief prayed for in the suit. Simply because the price of the superstructure, which is not the subject matter of the suit as it is over and

above, Rs. 5,000/- the matter is not beyond the jurisdiction of the District Munsif''s Court and the Munsif has jurisdiction to order delivery of

possession

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgement in the case of Krishnaji Vinayak Belapurkar v. Motilal Magandas

Gujaratijudgement reported in A.I.R.1929 Bom 337, the Bombay High Court wherein it has been held as follows:

The jurisdiction of the Court depends on the valuation of the claim as made in the plaint and especially in a suit for accounts the jurisdiction to pass

a decree for more than its pecuniary limit is not excluded when it is found on taking accounts that a sum of more than such pecuniary limit is due

The citations referred to above squarely apply to the facts of this case and it is clear that, with regard to rendering of accounts, the jurisdiction

of the court is not ousted by any subsequent development. At the time of filing of the suit, the suit was valued at Rs. 95,000/- and in the passage of

time, i.e., ten years later, normally the value of the property would be increased manifold by booming of real estate and by other developments.

But It does not mean that the jurisdiction of the court which had the pecuniary jurisdiction at the time of filing of the suit has been ousted.

In the above circumstance, this civil revision petition is allowed and the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal is directed to entertain the

compromise memo and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.No. 1 of 2006 is dismissed.