The companyrt allowed the application and directed the plaint to be returned to be presented to the proper companyrt, on July 4, 1940.
The plaintiff impleaded the State of Miraj as the first defendant.
2 of 1940.
The respondents 6 and 7 aforesaid applied for and obtained the necessary certificate for companying up in appeal to this Court.
The appeal was ultimately registered as First Appeal No.
The suit was valued at Rs.
Hence, these two appeals.
On appeal by the defeated plaintiff, during the pendency of the appeal, the State of Bombay was added as the 6th respondent, and the Yuvaraj of Miraj, Madhavrao Narayanarao, son of the Raja Sahib of Miraj, was added as the 7th respondent, as the latter had acquired an interest in the disputed properties by virtue of a grant in his favour.
Defendants 4 to 7 belong to the family of Narso who was, until his death in 1910, recorded in respect of the suit properties, but they did number appear and companytest the plaintiffs claim.
After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned District Judge, by his judgment and decree dated December 12, 1945, dismissed the suit with companyts.
After the dismissal of that suit, the plaintiff made an application on June 21, 1940, drawing the attention of the companyrt to the fact that the value of the subject matter of the suit had number been mentioned in the plaint, and that, on a moderate valuation, the disputed land should number be worth less than a minimum of 8 to 10 thousand rupees, and that, therefore, the companyrt had numberpecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit.
2 of 1940.
It appears that the two suits proceeded in that companyrt in a very leisurely fashion until November 29, 1939, when the Tikoni suit was dismissed.
724 of 1930, in that companyrt.
The said act of the plaintiff was number at all bona fide The facilities as regards limitations, etc.
7, and the Civil Appeal No.
No valuation was given in the plaint for the purposes of jurisdiction with reference to the value of the properties claimed.
A similar suit had been instituted by the plaintiff in the same companyrt in respect of lands in another village called Tikoni.
which a bona fide suitor would be entitled to cannot, therefore, be afforded to the plaintiff.
The plaint was accordingly re presented on that very date to the companyrt of District Judge at Miraj, and the same was numbered as Suit No.
This suit was registered as Original Suit No.
By a petition dated October 27, 1942, the defendant brought it to the numberice of the companyrt that the plaintiff despite his knowledge that the value of the subject matter of the suit was far in excess of the amount of jurisdiction of the Munsiffs companyrt filed the suit in the said companyrt.
104 of 1950, in the High Court of Bombay.
2,065, being 5 times the assessment on the disputed lands for the purposes of companyrt fee.
A Division Bench of that Court, by its judgment and decree dated November 30, 1951, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with companyts against the first and the 7th respondents.
Defendants 2 and 3 are plaintiffs brothers who are said to have relinquished their interest in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff.
287 of 1955, is on behalf of the added respondent No.
288 of 1955, is on behalf of the added respondent No.
Civil Appeal No.
The original first defendant only companytested the suit on a number of grounds, including the plea of limitation.
The plaintiff prayed in the plaint for possession and mesne profits in respect of lands at Malgaon and Takli, on the ground that the then State of Miraj had wrongfully resumed those lands in 1910, as part of the State Sheri Khata, which, after inquiry, was ordered on July 31, 1915, to be recorded as such lands, and the usufruct thereof during that period to be appropriated to the Khasgi Khata of the State.
For the purposes of these appeals, it is only necessary to state that the plaintiff respondent who was the appellant in the High Court, had instituted a suit on January 31, 1929, the very last day of limitation, in the Munsiffs Court at Miraj.
Sinha, J. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated November 30, 1951, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, reversing those of the District Judge at Miraj, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit properties in Civil Suit No.
