Point of Law : Objection as to local jurisdiction of a court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer (for brevity, “the learned Appellate Court”) in Civil Appeal No.36/2013 (CIS No.91/2014) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No1. Beawar (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) dismissing the Civil Suit No.113/02(55/87) for declaration, possession and permanent injunction, has been affirmed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (for brevity, “defendants”) stating therein that the suit shop No.20 situated outside Chang Gate, Gandhi Chowk, Beawar, as described in Para No.1 of the plaint, was taken on rent by him on 24.10.1966 from the defendant No.2-Municipal Council, Beawar for a period of 5 years which was extended from time to time and lastly on 01.11.1981 for a period of 5 years. It was averred that possession of the entire suit shop along with its furniture and fitting was handed over by him to the defendant No.1 on 24.02.1982 executing a general power of attorney in his favour; but, since, the defendant No.1 failed to fulfill the purpose of the power of attorney, it was cancelled by the plaintiff vide a registered deed dated 20.10.1985. Apprehending that in the interregnum, a lease deed might have been executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1, a decree of declaration as to such lease deed, if any, being null and void, possession and permanent injunction was prayed for.

3. The defendant No.1 in his written statement, admitting that initially the subject premises were let out to the plaintiff, submitted that with the plaintiff’s consent and knowledge, its lease deed was executed by the defendant No.2 in his favour on 24.02.1982 on a joint application and its possession was handed over to him for which he paid a consideration of Rs.38,500/- to the plaintiff.

4. The defendant No.2 in its written statement submitted that initially a lease deed of the subject shop dated 24.10.1966 was executed by it in favour of the plaintiff; but, subsequently, it was executed in favour of the defendant No.1 on 20.07.1987 as the plaintiff has handed over its possession to the defendant No.1 in violation of the terms of the lease deed and did not respond to the notice furnished to him.

5. The plaintiff in rejoinder denied that he ever consented for transfer of his lease hold shop in favour of the defendant No.1 accepting a consideration of Rs.38,500/-.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 14 Issues were framed. Issue No.14 pertained to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. It is noteworthy to observe here that initially the suit was filed in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Beawar; but, on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction, it was transferred to the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1 Beawar for its trial and disposal.

7. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit deciding the Issues No.1 to 6 & 12 against the plaintiff. While deciding the Issue No.14, it was held that the Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, the plaintiff has paid deficit Court fee undervaluing the suit and he was directed to pay the same valuing the subject matter of the suit at Rs.50,000/-. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2018.

8. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the validity of the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2018, is that while deciding the Issue No.14, the learned Court failed to appreciate that the Court of learned Civil Judge did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Referring to the p