JUDGMENT

1. The question of the precise scope of Section 331 of the CPC of 1882, which calls for decision in this appeal, is one of some nicety and apparently of first impression. The facts so far as it is necessary to state them to explain how the question arises are not the subject of controversy between the parties. The appellant, in execution of a decree for possession of land obtained by him was resisted by the defendant with the result that she was unable to recover possession of the property decreed to her. The claim; of the person who offered the resistance to delivery of possession, was thereupon numbered and registered as a result between the decree-holder as plaintiff and the claimant as defendant u/s 331 of the Code. One of the objections of the claimant defendant was, that the Court was not competent to investigate the claim, as the value of the property in dispute exceeded Rs. 2,000 the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The Court of first instance investigated this preliminary issue, and came to the conclusion that the value of the disputed property, was not less than Rs. 3,500, in this view the Munsif held that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, and dismissed it. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge affirmed the finding as to the value of the property, and held that the suit had boon rightly dismissed. The plaintiff decree-holder has now appealed to this Court, and on his behalf, it has been contended that when a claim has been preferred u/s 331, it must be investigated by the Court executing the decree, and that no question of valuation arises for consideration, In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed upon the decision in Sithalakshmi v. Vythilinga 8 M. 548, and Damul Dharma v. Shripat Narayan 6 Bom. L.R. 301. It has been argued on the other hand, that as the claim u/s 331, is directed to be numbered and registered as a suit between the parties and the Court is authorised to investigate the claim in the same manner and with the like powers as if a suit for the property had been instituted by the decree-holder against the claimant, under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code, it is open to the claimant to raise a question of valuation with a view to establish that the value of the disputed property is beyond the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. This proposition has been sought to be supported by a reference to the decisions in Nasir Ali Fakir v. Meher Ali 22 C. 830, Muttammal v. Chinnan 4 M. 220 at p. 228 and Moulakhan v. Gorikhan 14 B. 627. None of the cases mentioned in the argument on both sides, is directly in point, but there are dicta in two of the cases, one of which justifies the contention of appellant and the other that of the respondent. The solution of the question, which is by no means free from difficulty, must, therefore, depend mainly upon an interpretation of the statutory provisions on the subject.

2. Section 331 provides that the claim is to be numbered and registered as a suit and the Court is directed to proceed to investigate the claim in the same manner, and with the like powers as if a suit for the property had been instituted by the decree-holder against the claimant under the provision of Chapter V of the Code. Upon the investigation, the Court shall pass such orders as it thinks fit for executing or staying execution of the decree, and every such order has the same force as a decree and is subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise. Before we examine the judicial decision to which our attention has been invited it is worthy of note, that there have been material alterations in the statutory provisions on the subject from time to time. In Act VIII of 1859, Section 229 was closely similar to Section 331 of the Code of 1882. Under the Code of 1877, however, the claim had to be investigated as if a suit had been instituted u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act, and the powers of the Court were confined to an enquiry int