Skip to content


Velu Goundan Vs. Kumaravelu Gounden and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1897)7MLJ30
AppellantVelu Goundan
RespondentKumaravelu Gounden and ors.
Cases Referred and Krishnasami v. Kanahasabai I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....at the value of the share claimed which was less than rs. 2,500, and that under section 8 of the suit valuation act (vii of 1887) the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction should follow and be the same as that for court fees, and that, therefore, the suit was within the jurisdiction of the district munsif. the view of the subordinate judge is in our opinion correct and in accordance with the law as laid down in the suits valuation act, which it seems to us expressly altered by the law as laid down in the madras case.4. some doubt was sought to be thrown on this view by the fact that in three cases khansa bibi v. syed abba i.l.r. (1887) m., 141, ramayya v. subbarayadu i.l.r. (1889) m., 26, and krishnasami v. kanahasabai i.l.r. (1890) m. 184 all decided after passing of the suits.....
Judgment:

1. Plaintiff, a member of an undivided Hindu family, sued for partition and delivery to him of his one-third share of the joint family property.

2. The value of the share claimed was below Rs. 2,500, but the value of the whole property exceeds Rs. 4,000.

3. The District Munsif following the ruling in Vydianatha v. Subrahmanya I.L.R. (1884) M., 235 declined jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. His action was upheld on appeal to the District Judge. The plaintiff meantime presented his plaint to the Subordinate Judge, who also declined jurisdiction and returned the plaint to be presented to the proper court. The Subordinate Judge held that under Section 7, Clause 4 (b) of the Court Fees Act the suit should be valued for purposes of court fees at the relief sought in the plaint viz., at the value of the share claimed which was less than Rs. 2,500, and that under Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act (VII of 1887) the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction should follow and be the same as that for court fees, and that, therefore, the suit was within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif. The view of the Subordinate Judge is in our opinion correct and in accordance with the law as laid down in the Suits Valuation Act, which it seems to us expressly altered by the law as laid down in the Madras case.

4. Some doubt was sought to be thrown on this view by the fact that in three cases Khansa Bibi v. Syed Abba I.L.R. (1887) M., 141, Ramayya v. Subbarayadu I.L.R. (1889) M., 26, and Krishnasami v. Kanahasabai I.L.R. (1890) M. 184 all decided after passing of the Suits Valuation Act, the decision in 8 Madras was treated as still continuing the law applicable to the question. In those cases however, no reference was made to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act nor did they directly declare that the ruling in 8 Madras still governs cases within its scope.

5. Moreover in the recent case of Chocrapani A sary v. Narasinga Rao I.L.R. (1895) m. 59 this Court expressly approved the view that where the suit relates to co-parcenary property, unless it is one for general partition among all the shareholders, the specific and definite share claimed must be held to be the subject matter of the suit as stated in the Suits Valuation Act and Act III of 1873, (The Madras Civil Courts Act,), and the value of the same should determine the Court's jurisdiction and not that set on the whole property which will of course, be the value of a suit in which a general partition of all the shares may be prayed for. We think that these words correctly set forth the law as it now stands. The present suit, therefore, being for a share of the co-parcenary and not involving a general partition and the share being less than Rs. 2,500 in value, is within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Subordinate, Judge and dismiss this appeal and in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction we set aside the orders of the District Judge and of the District Munsif and direct the District Munsif to receive, the plaint and deal with it according to law. Costs throughout will be provided for in the decree of the District Munsif.


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