B. P. Sinha, J. - (1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th November 1951, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, reversing those of the District Judge at Miraj, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit properties in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1940. Civil Appeal No. 287 of 1955, is on behalf of the added respondent No. 7, and the Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1955, is on behalf of the added respondent No. 6- the State of Bombay which now represents the original first defendant-the Miraj State (now merged in the State of Bombay.)
(2.) In the view we have taken, as will presently appear, on the question of limitation, it is not necessary to state in any detail the pleadings of the parties or the merits of the decisions of the Courts below. 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 31st January 1929, the very last day of limitation, in the Munsiff's Court at Miraj. This suit was registered as Original Suit No. 724 of 1930, in that Court. The plaintiff prayed in the plaint for possession and mesne profits in respects 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 31st July 1915, to be recorded as such lands, the usufruct thereof during that period to be appropriated to the Khasgi Khata of the State. The plaintiff impleaded the State of Miraj as the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are plaintiff's brothers who are said to have relinquished their interest in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 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 not appear and contest the plaintiff's claim. The suit was valued at Rs. 2,065/-, being 5 times the assessment on the disputed lands for the purposes of court-fee. 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 Court in respect of lands in another village called Tikoni. That had been registered as Original Suit No. 443 of 1928 in the Munsiff's Court at Miraj, and we shall refer to that suit as the "Tikoni suit'. It appears that the 'two suits proceeded in that Court in a very leisurely fashion until 29th November 1939, when the Tikoni suit was dismissed. After the dismissal of that suit, the plaintiff made an application on 21st June, 1940, drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that the value of the subject-matter of the suit had not been mentioned in the plaint, and that, on a moderate valuation, the disputed land should not be worth "less than a minimum of 8 to 10 thousand rupees", and that, therefore, the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit. The Court allowed the application and directed the plaint to be returned to be presented to the proper Court, on 4th July 1940. The plaint was accordingly re-presented on that very date to the Court of District Judge at Miraj, and the same was numbered as Suit No. 2 of 1940.
(3.) The original first defendant only contested the suit on a number of grounds including the plea of limitation. By a petition dated 27th October 1942, the defendant brought it to the notice of the Court 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 Munsiff's Court filed the suit in the said Court. The said act of the plaintiff was not at all 'bona fide' .... The facilities as regards limitations etc. which a 'bona fide' suitor would be entitled to cannot, therefore, be afforded to the plaintiff.";