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.