The pecuniary jurisdiction of a civil Court is ordinarily governed by the value of the subject-matter of the suit as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint, and the Court's jurisdiction is determined at the time of the institution of the suit and cannot be enlarged by a subsequent compromise which includes additional claims beyond the Court's pecuniary jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of certain proceedings for the execution of a decree passed by a learned munsif.

( 2 ) THE appellants sued the respondent for Rs. 2,000 as damages resulting from the cutting down by the respondent of certain trees in a grove claimed by the appellants as their property; they sued also for an injunction to restrain the respondent from cutting down any more trees. During the pendency of the suit more trees were cut down by the respondent, and ultimately the parties entered into a compromise whereunder, inter alia, the respondent agreed to pay to the appellants the sum of Rs. 9,650 by way of damages, and a decree was passed by the learned Munsif in the terms of this compromise. Neither party challenged the Courts order directing the compromise to be recorded and the decree, therefore, became final.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the appellants sought to execute this decree, and the respondent then for the first time objected that as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif was restricted to Rs. 5,000 so much of the decree as was in excess of that amount was a nullity and incapable of execution. The execution Court dismissed the objection, but on appeal the learned District Judge reversed this decision. The appellants have come to this Court in second appeal.

( 4 ) TWO contentions have been advanced on their behalf. It is contended that the Munsif had jurisdiction to pass a decree for Rs. 9,650 notwithstanding the fact that this pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 6,000. It is common ground that the jurisdiction of the learned munsif extended to all original suits cognizable by the civil Courts of which the value did not exceed Rs. 6,000; and there is now no doubt that the pecuniary jurisdiction of a civil Court, on its original or appellate side, is ordinarily governed by the value of the subject-matter of the suit as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint unless it appears that, either purposely or through gross negligence, the true value of the suit has been misrepresented. And this is so even though the plaintiff may not know or be able to ascertain the correct value at the time of filing the plaint, as for example in suits for pre-emption, for the recovery of an amount due on taking unsettled accounts or for mesne profits; and if in such cases the value of the subject-matter of the suit is ultimately found to be in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court the latter may nevertheless pass a decree based on the true valuation; Mahabir Singh v. Behari Lal, 13 ALL. 320, Madho Das v. Bamji Pathak, 16 ALL. 286, Muhammad, Abdul Majid v. Ala Baksh 47 all. 634, Sudarshan Das v. Ram Prashad 33 ALL. 97. It is therefore, I think, clear that the mere fact that the value of the subject-matter of the suit is found during the course of the hearing to exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court does not debar the latter from passing a valid decree for an amount which may be very greatly in excess of that jurisdiction.

( 5 ) HAD the present suit been one for an injunction and for the recovery of the estimated value (not exceeding Rs. 5000) of an unascertained Dumber of trees cut down by the respondent, and had it been established during the trial that the value of the trees actually out exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court the latter would, in my opinion, have been entitled to pass a valid decree either for the full value of the trees which had been out or for such sum as the plaintiffs were prepared to accept from the defendant by way of a compromise. What has however happened in the present case is, in my opinion, something quite different. Apart from the claim for an injunction the suit was for the recovery of a specific sum of money as damages, after the filing of the suit, other trees were out down by the respondent, and the agreed damages amounting to Rs. 9650 were in respect of those trees as well as the trees for the value of which the suit had been brought. In other words, the