The main legal point established is that in a property dispute involving joint use of premises, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to address issues of valuation, possession, and partitioning, even if the suit is not for total exclusion of a family member from the premises.

1. This notice of motion is taken out by the defendant for dismissing the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as also for returning the plaint to proper Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC.

2. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the pecuniary jurisdiction claimed by the plaintiff is erroneous. The suit premises is part of flat No.2 on the first floor of unit no.5 in Premium Unit Co-operative Housing Society Ltd at Four Bungalows, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053.

3. The parties are stated to have joint use of flat Nos. 1 and 2 constituting the entire unit No.5 in the above society premises. The valuation by the plaintiff is for an area of 650 sq. ft of area of the said flat. The defendant has shown the ready-reckoner value of 2013 when the suit was filed which would show the valuation of the suit flat to be Rs.32.88 lakhs. The defendant claims that consequently this Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction is barred and the suit must be returned to the Bombay City Civil Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC. The plaintiff’s valuation for 650 sq. ft of premises is Rs.5 crores the plaintiff has paid Court fees of Rs. 3 lakhs.

4. The plaintiff has sought mandatory relief by way of a direction for the said flat as also common garden. A reading of the plaint shows the entitlement of the plaintiff to the entire flat No.2 on the first floor of unit No.5. The plaintiff must value the entire flat of which he, in essence, seeks exclusive possession upon the discontinuance of the joint user by and between the parties as before. The valuation is, therefore, correct though not correctly worded. The plaintiff may amend the valuation clause of the plaint as advised. However the Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction is not barred. The reliefs prayed for in prayers (a) and (b) cannot be granted and are refused.

5. Though the application in that behalf is not made, it is also argued that this Court would not have the inherent jurisdiction to try the suit. It is contended that the Court of Small Causes at Bombay would be the Court having inherent jurisdiction since the suit is actually for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the defendant. Consequently the issue in that behalf is also framed and answered as follows:

Whether the Court’s inherent jurisdiction is barred.

6. Since the issue is only an issue of law with regard to the inherent jurisdiction, Counsel on behalf of defendant contended that only the averments in the plaint would be required to be seen and no oral evidence is required to be led.

7. The plaintiff’s suit is for a mandatory order of injunction restraining the defendant from using the suit premises and directing the defendant to remove his belongings, materials and articles lying in the suit premises and further directing him to shift permanently in the ground floor flat No.1 in unit No.5 Premium Unit Co-operative Housing Society Ltd at Four Bungalows, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053. The suit is also for an injunction preventing the plaintiff from using the common garden in unit No.5 of the aforesaid society. The plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of flat No.2 on the first floor of unit No.5 of the above society. The defendant No.2 is the owner of flat No.1 on the ground floor of unit No.5 in the said society. The defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. Both purchased their respective flats in above 1990. They both have been living in unit No.5 since the purchase. They have however not lived separately in flat No.1 and flat No.2. Both parties have had joint use and occupation of the entire unit No.5. Such joint use and occupation is not only averred by the plaintiff, but admitted by the defendant.

8. Consequently the parties had modified the user of the premises to suit their requirements as the joint family living together. This modification is shown in the plan Exhibit-E to the plaint. In the ground floor flat one bedroom ha