Om Prakash, J. - (1.) THIS is a first appeal from order dated 8th January, 1986 of the learned District Judge, Ballia, holding that the jurisdiction to hear the appeal lay with the High Court and not with the District Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants-appellants have filed this appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming l/3rd share in the properties, comprised in schedule 1, 3, 4 and 5 as annexed to the plaint. Another relief sought by the plaintiffs was that a declaration be made that the plaintiffs and defendants are the beneficiaries of 1/3rd share each in the property, given in schedule 2, which is a Devatian property. It was also prayed that it may further be declared that the plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 2 are entitled to act as joint Sarvarakar and are also entitled to manage the property, mentioned in schedule 2 jointly, and that they are entitled to take their share in the net surplus income arising to the deity. Another relief was that the defendant no. 1 be ordered to render account of income of the property, mentioned in schedule 2 from 16th June, 1973, onwards. The suit was, inter alia, decreed by the learned Civil Judge for accounting in respect of the income arising from 'Devatian' property, as shown in schedule 2. The plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 were declared joint sarvarakar of the Devatian property. The final decree of the trial court entitled the plaintiffs of receive Rs. 96,000/- representing their 1/3rd share in net income of the 'Devatian property, comprised in schedule 2, that was arrived at after accounting for the period, commencing from June, 1973 to May, 1985. The said sum became pay-able on payment of court-fee. The defendants filed appeal against the final decree in the court of the District Judge who was of the view that as the final decree was passed for a far greater amount than Rs. 20,000/- being the pecuniary limit for the jurisdiction of the District Judge, the jurisdiction to hear the appeal lay with the High Court. He, therefore, directed that the memo of appeal be returned to the appellants for presentation before the proper court.
(3.) THE main contention of the appellants is that for determining the jurisdiction the valuation as shown in the plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction alone is material and not the amount for which the final decree is passed. Various reliefs claimed in the plaint were valued at a total sum of Rs. 17,225/- including the relief of accounting that was valued at Rs. 1,000/-. After the final decree, a sum of Rs. 96,000/- has been awarded against the relief of accounting, claimed in respect of the net income of the property, comprised in schedule 2. THE contention of the appellants is that the amount as determined in the final decree cannot be taken into account for determining the jurisdiction of the appellate court. THE short question for consideration, therefore, is whether the forum of appeal will be determined on the valuation, shown in the plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction or on the basis of the amount, as ascertained in the final decree. Sri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that under section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (briefly "the Act, 1887"), an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie to the District Judge where the valuation of the original suit was less than Rs. 20,000/-and to the High Court in any other case. The submission is that Section 21 or any other section of the Act, 1887, does not provide that the forum of appeal will be decided according to the relief, granted by the final decree. The suit having been decided by the Civil Judge, Sri Bhargava argued that jurisdiction to hear the appeal lay with the District Judge under section 21 of the Act, 1887, notwithstanding the fact that a sum of Rs. 96,000/- has been awarded under the final decree to the plaintiffs against the relief of accounting in respect of the income that arose to the Devatian property, comprised in schedule 2 for the period from June 1973 to May 1985. Another submission of Sri Bhargava is that the relief of accounting, as claimed in respect of the income arising from the property shown in schedule 2, is incidental or ancillary to the main relief of partition and for that reason also the amount awarded pursuant to the incidental relief of accounting will not be germane for determining the forum of appeal. Sri Bhargava submitted that though the court-fees would be payable on the entire amount, awarded in the final decree, but the enhanced amount of the final decree would not be taken into account for determining the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and that such valuation would remain the same, as was set out in the plaint. It was argued by Sri Bhargava that the suit of the plaintiffs remained only a suit for partition, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs claimed the relief of accounting in respect of the income of the property, shown in schedule 2, which was the joint family property in the beginning and became Devatian property later and, therefore, the valuation was to be done under section 4 of the Act, 1887, and section 8 of that Act was not attracted to the suit.;