Skip to content


Kedar Singh and ors. Vs. Matabadal Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All44; 1Ind.Cas.703
AppellantKedar Singh and ors.
RespondentMatabadal Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
.....act) section 8 - act no. vii of 1870 (court fees act), section 7, clause ex--valuation of suit--suit for redemotion of mortgage. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools..........to the provisions of section 8 of act no. vii of 1887, an act which was passed after the rulings referred to, these rulings are no longer law. that section provides that in suits other than those referred to in the court fees act, section 7, paragraph ix, where court fees are payable ad valorem under the court fees act, the value as determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. one of the kinds of suits referred to in paragraph ix of section 7 is a suit against a mortgagee for the property mortgaged. the present suit is one of that nature. but the section of the suits valuation act relied on by the appellants' learned vakil does not prescribe what is to be taken as the value of a suit for redemption. this being so, we.....
Judgment:

Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.

1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur returning a plaint to the appellants for presentation in the Court of the Munsif. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage, the amount secured by the mortgage being Rs. 1,000. In the plaint it is stated that the value of the property is Rs. 9,000. The learned Counsel for the respondents takes a preliminary objection based on Section 689 of the Code of Civil Procedure, viz., that the appeal does not lie to this Court, but to the Court of the District Judge. This preliminary objection really raises the issue as to whether the plaintiffs' suit was cognizable by the Munsif or by the Subordinate Judge. If the 'value' of the suit is to be taken to be the amount secured by the mortgage, then, under Section 19(1) of Act No. XII of 1887, the plaint should have been filed in the Court of the Munsif and the action taken by the Subordinate Judge in returning it is right. In the case of Kubair Singh v. Atma Ram it (1883) I.L.R. 5 All. 332 was held by Stuart, C.J. and Tyrrell, J. that the value of the subject-matter of a suit like the present was not the market value of the land, but the amount of the mortgage money. In the Full Bench case of Amanat Begam v. Bhajan Lal (1886) I.L.R. 8 All. 438 a similar view was taken. The learned vakil for the appellants contends that, having regard to the provisions of Section 8 of Act No. VII of 1887, an Act which was passed after the rulings referred to, these rulings are no longer law. That section provides that in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, Section 7, paragraph ix, where court fees are payable ad valorem under the Court Fees Act, the value as determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. One of the kinds of suits referred to in paragraph ix of Section 7 is a suit against a mortgagee for the property mortgaged. The present suit is one of that nature. But the section of the Suits Valuation Act relied on by the appellants' learned vakil does not prescribe what is to be taken as the value of a suit for redemption. This being so, we think that the section relied on does not affect the rulings to which we have referred above. We must therefore sustain the preliminary objection. We direct that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellants for presentation in the proper Court. The respondents are entitled to their costs in this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //