JUDGMENT - G.F. COUTO, J.:---Whether the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of a suit for mandatory injunction and mesne profits can be enhanced while filing an appeal against the decree of the Court by adding the amount of mesne profits claimed till that date altering thereby the appellate forum from the District Court to the High Court, is the moot question that this appeal gives rise to at the threshold.

2. The appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction and mesne profits against the respondent and valued it for the purpose of Court less and jurisdiction at Rs.12,000/-. He quantified the mesne profits payable to him at the time of the institution of the suit at Rs. 5000/- and further claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from the month of June, 1988 onwards. By judgment dated 8th January, 1985, the learned Addl. Civil Judge, S.D. Margao dismissed the appellant's suit and hence, this appeal was filed in this Court, valuing it at Rs. 74,000/- on basis of a claim of 67 months of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from June, 1988.

3. Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act, 1965 provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the District Court shall be the Court of Appeal from all decrees and orders passed by the subordinate Courts from which an appeal lies under any law in force. Section 20 prescribes there shall be two classes of Civil Judges, namely, Senior Division and Junior Division Judges, and lays down that the jurisdiction of a Senior Civil Judge will extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, while the jurisdiction of a Junior Civil Judge is restricted to all original suits and proceedings of a Civil nature wherein the subject matter does not exceed in amount of value ten thousand rupees. Section 22 deals with appeals from the decisions of Civil Judges and postulates that in all suits decided by a Civil Judge of which the amount or value of the subject matter exceeds ten thousand rupees, the appeal from his decision shall be direct to the High Court.

4. Thus, in view of these provisions of the Civil Courts Act and the valuation of the suit at Rs. 12,000/- made by the plaintiff/appellant at the time of its institution for the purpose of jurisdiction, the question where the appeal against the aforesaid decree of the trial Court lies to the District Court or to the High Court arises. Mr. Shinkre, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, addressing himself to this problem, urged that the appeal filed in this Court is competent. He contended that the mesne profits claimed had been quantified at Rs. 1000/- per month and at the time of the filing of the appeal, were amounting to Rs. 74,000/-. Therefore, even to prevent evasion to the payment of Court fees, the appeal had to be filed in this Court, he further submitted drawing support in (In re Kudappa Subbamma)1, A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 6 ; (Ulahannan Kuriyan and others v. Uthuppa Verkey and others)2, A.I.R. 1954 Tra. Co., 174 ; (Nemi Chand and others v. The Edwards Mills Co., Ltd. and others) 3, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 28, in (State of Maharashtra v. Mishrilal Tarachand Lodha and others)4, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 457 and in (Krishnan Padanayar v. Permeswaran Nayar and others)5, A.I.R. 1952 Travancore-Cochin, 43.

5. Having regard to the importance of the problem before us we thought it necessary to hear on the point the learned Government Advocate and some leading member of the Bar, apart from the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. We record here with great pleasure our deep appreciation for the unbounded co-operation and able assistance, rendered to us in this case, as always, by Mr. Nadkarni, Mr. Kakodkar, Mr. Usgaoncar and Mr. Rebello.

6. Mr. Nadkarni, the learned Government Advocate, strongly opposed the above views of Mr. Shinkre. He has indeed contended that the jurisdiction of the Court is fixed by the valuation of the suit at the time of its institution. That valuation reflects the v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document