JUDGMENT: The preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction is raised in this appeal and that issue as well as other issues that arise will be dealt with.

2. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, the suit property belonged to one Ponnurangem Pillai who died in the year 1952 leaving behind three sons and the wife of a predeceased son. He executed a will on 29.8.1940, bequeathing his properties to his wife and the four persons above named. The beneficiaries effected a partition amongst themselves on 17.5.1979. The suit property is located in Cadastre Nos.159 and 159 Bis. This share was allotted to Pandurangam, Ponnurangam’s son. On 19.2.1981, the respondent purchased the property from Pandurangam. The suit property in which there are coconut groves, was orally leased out to one Dhanusu Pillai and his sons. These lesses subleased the property to a number of tenants, one of whom was the appellant’s father Muruga Gramany alias Murugesa Gramany. The arrangement commenced in the year 1959 and after the original tenant’s death, his son the appellant continued in possession. The respondent called upon the appellant to vacate the premises, but the appellant proceeded to put up construction without seeking permission of the respondent. Therefore, a police complaint was given. Earlier there were Referee proceedings between the respondent/ his predecessors-in-interest and Dhansu Pillai and the appellant. The matter came up to this Court too. Notice was issued terminating the tenancy. The suit O.S. No.105 of 1983 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The appellant resisted the suit stating that Pandurangam Pillai had also sought recovery of possession and he did not succeed. The appellant denied that he was a tenant. The appellant also denied the respondent’s title. According to the appellant, he and his family were living in the suit property for more than 100 years. In all the prior proceedings, the appellant’s case that there was no landlord/ tenant relationship was accepted. In 1973, in Special Appeal, two Judges of this Court held in favour of the appellant. The appellant also claimed that he had perfected title by adverse possession. The appellant refused to approve of the partition deed dated 17.5.1979. He along with 200 others were poor people in huts residing in the vast place comprising Cadastre Nos.159 and 159 Bis. For all the above grounds, the appellant prayed that the suit should be dismissed. This in brief was the case of the two parties before the trial Court.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The respondent was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000 towards super-structure and improvements. Delivery of possession was ordered within two months after such payment of deposit. According to the learned trial Judge, this amount was just and reasonable compensation for the huge expenditure incurred by the appellant to maintain the building in a habitable condition. The respondent was directed to pay additional Court-fee on the aforesaid sum of Rs.25,100. Therefore, though originally the value of the suit was only Rs.10,800. The decree enhanced it. The following paragraph in the decree is relevant:

“..... Pondicherry Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1972 and further valued at Rs.35,900 (Rs.10,800 + 25,100) and additional Court-fee payable Rs.2,883”.

5. Mr.K.Surendranath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The appeal ought to have been filed before the District Court. The value of the appeal is the same as the value of the suit. It was submitted that the amendment to the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act came into force on 1.9.1986. Sec.9(2) of the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, as amended by Act 9 of 1986 from 1.9.1986 provides that appeals the value of which exceeds Rs.30,000 can alone be filed before the High Court. The suit was decreed on 24.12.1986 after the Act came into force. Since the value of the appeal is Rs.10,800 it s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document