PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami, R.K.Choudhary and K.Sahai JJ.
Shyam Nandan Sahay
Versus
Dhanpati Kuer
Civil Revision No. 873 of 1955 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 09, 1960
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 24 - TRANSFER OF SUIT - JURISDICTION - SUIT INSTITUTED IN COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION - TRANSFER TO COMPETENT COURT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs instituted a title suit for declaration of title and joint possession over lands in suit by dispossessing defendants. The suit was valued at Rs. 825/- and filed before the Munsif, First court who had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits up to value of Rs. 2000 only. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit on various grounds, including one of valuation. In February, 1955, the suit was transferred by the District Judge of Muzaffarpur to the court of the Execution Munsif at Muzaffarpur who had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits up to the value of Rs. 4,000/-. The Execution Munsif, on 7-7-1955, held that the total value of the suit was Rs. 3,947/8/-. The petitioners filed an application before him stating that he had no power to entertain the plaint and that the transfer of this case by the District Judge from the first court of the Munsif to his court was illegal and could not validate the filing of the plaint. The learned Execution Munsif overruled the above contention, and held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. Against the above order of the Execution Munsif, the petitioners made this application in revision to this court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit filed before the Munsif, First court Muzaffarpur on the valuation given in the plaint was within his jurisdiction and the District Judge was perfectly competent to transfer the same to the court of the Execution Munsif there who had undoubtedly jurisdiction to try the same, even on the subsequent valuation fixed by him.
Issues: Whether the transfer of a suit from a court without jurisdiction to a competent court is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of transfer vested in the High Court or the District Court by Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is untrammelled by any conditions and is general in terms. 2. All that is necessary to bring into play the jurisdiction of the High Court or the District Court to exercise the power of transfer and withdrawal given under that section is that the suit, appeal or other proceeding sought to be transferred, should be pending before it or in any court subordinate to it. 3. Where, on the valuation given in the plaint a particular court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, a transfer of the same to another court under that provisions of Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Proce- dure is competent even though subsequently it is found that its real valuation was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed with costs.
R.K.Choudhary, J.
1. Defendants second party are the petitioners. The plaintiffs opposite parties 1 and 2 instituted Title suit No. 143 of 1953 against the petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 22 in the First Court of the Munsif at Muzaffarpur on 2-9-1953 for declaration of their title to, and for joint possession with the opposite parties 15 to 22 over, the lands in suit by dispossessing the petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 14 or whichever of them be found to be in possession thereof. They also made a prayer for a decree of mesne profits, past and future. The suit was valued at Rs. 825/- and filed before the Munsif, First court who had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits up to value of Rs. 2000 only. The petitioners filed a written statement contesting the suit on various grounds, including one of valuation. They stated that the valuation given by the plaintiffs was too low and, on a proper valuation the Munsif, First court would have no jurisdiction to try the suit. An issue regarding the valuation of the lands in suit was also raised. In February, 1955, the suit was transferred by the District Judge of Muzaffarpur to the court of the Execution Munsif at Muzaffarpur who had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits up to the value of Rs. 4,000/-. In this court also the petitioners pressed the question of valuation of the lands in suit, and both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions in regard to that matter.
The execution Munsif, on 7-7-1955, held that the total value of the suit was Rs. 3,947/8/-. On 12-7-1955, the petitioners filed an application before him stating that he had no power to entertain the plaint and that the transfer of this case by the District Judge from the first court of the Munsif to his court was illegal and could not validate the filing of the plaint. It was contended that inasmuch as the Munsif, First court, in whose court the plaint was originally filed had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint of this suit, the valuation of which had been found to be Rs. 3,947/8/- the entire proceedings from the date of the institution of the suit including the transfer of the same to the court of Execution Munsif, were null and void and without jurisdiction.
It was, accordingly, prayed that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiffs for being filed in the proper court. The learned Execution Munsif overruled the above contention, and held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. Against the above order of the Execution Munsif, the petitioners made this application in revision to this court, which was first heard by a single judge who referred to a Division Bench for hearing. Before the Division Bench a Bench decision of this court in Bibi Sairah V/s. Mt. Gulab Kuer, AIR 1919 Pat 345, was cited in support of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. That Bench however, in view of various decisions of other High Courts doubted the correctness of the above decision of this court, and the case has, therefore, been referred to the Full Bench.
2. Mr. B C. De, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the value of the suit as found by the Execution Munsif being above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif, first court, Muzaffarpur, in whose court the plaint of the suit was originally filed, there was no valid presentation of the plaint and therefore, there was no legally instituted suit pending in that court which could be transferred by the District Judge to the court ot the Execution Munsif for trial. He has submitted an argument that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer such a case to any other court, and, by the order of transfer, the transferee court could have no jurisdiction to try the suit. On behalf of the plaintiffs opposite parties, however, it is contended that the suit as originally filed, in view of the statements contained in the plaint was validly instituted in the first court ot the Munsif at Muzaffarpur as according to the valu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.