S.N. Modi, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption in respect of a house situated at Udaipur, more particularly described in para No. 1 of the plaint.
2. The house in dispute was mortgaged by Champalal & Moonlal for Rs. 1,999 on 9-11-20 in favour of Kesarilal for a period of 11 years. Both Champalal and Moonlal died. The legal representatives of Champalal are the plantiff Ambalal and defendant Narain Villabh. So far as Mooulal is concerned, his sole legal representative is defendant Kajodilal. The mortgagee Kesarihl also died and his legal representatives are Mst. Kastootbai and Banwari Lal. On 18-5-63 Banwarilal sub-mortgaged the property in favour of Motilal for Rs. 4999. On 17-8-63 the plaintiff Ambalal served a notice calling upon the mortgagees and sub-mortgagees to accept mortgage money and redeem the house . Ultimately, the plaintiff Ambalal filed the suit for redemp ion in the Court of Munsif, Udaipur and valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 1999 and paid the court-fee ad valorem on the said amount. The plaintiff impeaded Mst Kastoorbai, Banwarilal, Motilal, Kajodilal and Narain Vallabh as defendant. The suit was contested by Banwar lal, Motilal and Mst. Kastoorbai. They admitted the mortgage dated 9-11-20 for Rs. 1999 in favour of Kesarilal. They alleged that on 8-12-20 the plaintiff's father Champalal further borrowed a sum of Rs. 200 & created a charge of the said amount on the mortgage house and agreed that the house would be redeamed only on payment of both the same. namely, Rs. 1099 and Rs. 200- total Rs. 2199. They pleaded that in view of the above facts, the mortgage amount was not Rs. 1999 but Rs. 2199 and as such the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It may be mentioned here that in those days the Munsif had jurisdiction to try the suit up to the valuation of Rs. 2000. The defendants further pleaded that they had invested Rs. 4600 on improvements of the mortgages property and according to the terms of the mortgage-deed, they had the right to incur expenditure on improvements and also to realise the same from the mortgagor at the time of redemption. On the pleadings of the patties, the following issues were framed:
1 eqn~nbZ ds okfyn us fnukad 8&12&20 dh 200 eqrZfge ls vkSj ysdj ckj Hkh tk;nkn ejgquk ij dk;e dj fn;k A ftlls tk;nkn ejgquk ij ckj jgu :-1999 :i;k u gksdj 2199:- gS Mh 1&3
2 D;k eqrZfguku dks T;knk xSj cgl ij ykxr yxus dk vf/kdkj Fkk vSkj mUgksus tk;nkn ij ejgquk ij lu~ 63 rd 4600 :i;k ykxr yxkbZ Hkh gS Mh&1&3
3 D;k ekfy;r nkok :i;k 2199 gS ftles nkok dkfcy lek;r gktk ugh gS Mh- 1&3
4D;k nkos es ekaxh xbZ nknjlh ij dksVZ Qhl is'k djok iqjh gS A izfrdkj D;k gS ih
The learned Munsif after evidence held that since the original mortgage dated 9-11-20 was executed by several mortgagors and the subsequent debt was borrowed on 8-12-20 by the plaintiff's father alone, the mortgagees cannot in the present suit compel the plaintiff mortgagor to make the payment in respect of the subsequent charge of Rs. 200. The learned Munsif further found that the valuation of the suit and the court fee paid there on was proper and the suit was triable by him. Dealing with the question of improvements the learned Munsif found that the mortgagees spent Rs. 1000 on improvements & therefore they are entitled to recover that amount from the plaintiff mortgagor, He accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit for redemption on payment of Rs. 1999 as mortgage money & Rs. 1000 Incurred on improvments total Rs. 2,999/-. Dissatisfied with the said decree. both the parties preferred separate appeals The learned Senior Civi1 Judge, Udaipur, who heard the appeals, dismissed both the appeals The defendant mortgagees have now preferred the second appeal to this Court.
3. It may be mentioned at the out-set that the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-mortgagor frankly conceded that his client was prepared to make payment of the subsequent mortgage amount of Rs. 200 borrowed by his father in other words, the plaintiff is now willing to pay to the mortgagees a sum of Rs. 3199. In view of the above concession made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, Mr. A.L. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the defendant appellants has confined his argument to only one point that the suit was not triable by the Court of Munsif, Udaipur. His contention is that in face of the subsequent charge created by the plaintiff's father on 8-12-20, the valuation of the suit was undoubtedly Rs. 2199 and consequently the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. I find no substance in the above contention It is common ground between the parties that the plaintiff in his plaint vauled the suit at Rs. 1999 With this valuation mentioned in the plaint the suit was certainly triable by Munsif. It is true that the defendants stated in the written statement that the plaintiff's father created a further charge on the mortgage-property on 8-12-20. The defendants also claimed Rs. 4600 on improvements. But the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is determined by the valuation in the plaint unless by fraud on misrepresentation the plaintiff deliberately over values or under values the claim for the purpose of choosing the forum. In the latter case, it is the true value at which the plaint ought to be valued & that would represent the value of the suit In the present case, the plaintiff valued the suit in his plaint at Rs. 1999 and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the valuation put by the plaintiff in plaint was fraudulent or was based on misrepresentation or that be deliberately undervalued the suit for purposes of choosing the forum Both the courts below rejected the claim put-forward by the defendants in respect of the sub-sequent charge. It is only in this second appeal that the learned Counsel he plaintiff made a concession and conceded that his client is prepared to make the payment of Rs. 200 also. This concession I am told was also made before the trial court but the same was rejected by the defendant-mortgagees Be that as it may. it is not a case where it can be said that the plaintiff by fraud or misrepresentation under valued the suit. Looking to the valuation mentioned in the plaint, the suit was rightly filed in the Court of the Munsif, Udaipur and that court bad jurisdiction to try it.
4. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. The parties shall give and take costs of this appeal as alto the costs in the two court below according to their success and failure.