M.H. Jan Mohamed v. Registrar of Building, H.C. Civil Case 21-A-72, 26/9/72.

M.H. Jan Mohamed v. Registrar of Building, H.C. Civil Case 21-A-72, 26/9/72.

Held:   (1) In a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is tenant of certain premises, the subject matter of the suit is the land. Therefore the value of the subject matter for purposes of determining the appropriate court for trial under s. 35(2) (a), Civil Procedure is the value of the land in Question.

            (2) Jurisdiction of a court prima facie is determined by the value the plaintiff puts on his suit, unless the valuation is patently wrong on the face of it. To state the value of the premises is not patently wrong.

BRAMBLE, J. – This is suit for a declaratory order. A preliminary objection has been raised that the suit does not comply with Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code which reads: ”13. Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. For the purposes of this section, a court of a resident magistrate and district court shall be deemed to be courts of the same grade.” The question is whether the suit should have been brought in a district court. There has been no dispute as to the fact that such a court has power to grant the order sought. Section 35(2)(a) limits its jurisdiction to proceedings in which the value of the subject matter does not exceed twenty thousand shillings.

The order sought is a declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant of certain premises. Mr. Lubuva contends that the subject matter of the suit is the legality of the plaintiff’s stay on the premises and monetary value ought to be put on this issue. In suing for possession a person is claiming a legal right and this right is not considered as the basis on which a value should be placed for the purpose of ascertaining in what court the matter should be tried. It is the value of the land: and the land is considered the subject matter. A declaration order in a case like this is statement of the person’s right with respect to property and the property is the subject matter. Moreover it is the value that the plaintiff puts on his suit that prima facie determines jurisdiction in the 9^th Edition of Mulla on the Indian Code of Civil Procedure page 893 it is stated that: “If the over-valuation or under-valuation is patent on the face of the plaint, it is the duty of the Court to which the plaint is presented to return it to the plaintiff to be presented to the proper Court”. There is no corresponding rule in our Civil Procedure Code but as a matter of practice this can be done.

            Here it is not a case of wrong valuation but the method of valuation. I cannot say that the plaintiff’s estimate of value as being the annual rental value of the premises is wrong and I hold that the matter is proper before this Court.