Skip to content


Chelasani Rattayya Vs. Anne Brahmayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad1223; 83Ind.Cas.59; (1925)49MLJ309
AppellantChelasani Rattayya
RespondentAnne Brahmayya and ors.
Cases ReferredRachappasubrao v. Shiddappa Venkatrao
Excerpt:
- .....no appeal lay to the high court. the present case is stronger. it is not the opposite party but the plaintiff himself that wants to show that the value of the subject-matter is less than rs. 10,000 to avoid appeal to the privy council, he himself having valued the subject-matter at rs. 10,000 when he filed his suit a valuation accepted by the other side. it is not suggested that, if the value of the subject-matter in suit is rs. 10,000 or upwards, the value of the subject-matter in appeal has become different.2. the judgment is a revising judgment and the petitioner is entitled to the leave prayed for which is accordingly granted.
Judgment:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of First Instance and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council must be Rs. 10,000 or upwards. (Section 110, Civil Procedure Code). The suit was for setting aside an adoption and an alienation. The alienated properties were set forth in the schedule to the plaint and were valued at Rs. 5,000 in paragraph 4 of the plaint. That there are other properties affected by the adoption and by the suit is admitted and the value of all the properties was described in paragraph 3 of the plaint as Rs. 10,000 thirty years ago. The plaintiffs finally valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 (see paragraph 7 of the plaint). This value must be the market value of the subject-matter of the suit. It cannot be the artificial valuation prescribed under Section 7 of the Court-fees Act which is inapplicable to this case as the suit is for declaration without consequential relief and therefore falls under Chapter 11, Clause 17 of the Court-fees Act. Under Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act the jurisdiction depends on the value of the subject-matter of the suit and that value (which, in that section, means market value) has been stated to be Rs. 10,000. The plaintiffs are therefore barred by their valuation [see Alagappa Chetty v. Nachiappan : AIR1923Mad125 where the valuation though, under the Court-fees Act, was also of the market value as the suit related to sites and buildings and not lands and therefore was governed by Section 7, Clause (v)(e) and not Clauses (a) to (d). The decision of the Judicial Committee in Rachappasubrao v. Shiddappa Venkatrao ILR (1918) B 507 involves the same principle. It was held in that case that the plaintiff's valuation having been accepted by the defendant, the defendant cannot be allowed to raise the question that the value was less than Rs., 5,000 and to contend that no appeal lay to the High Court. The present case is stronger. It is not the opposite party but the plaintiff himself that wants to show that the value of the subject-matter is less than Rs. 10,000 to avoid appeal to the Privy Council, he himself having valued the subject-matter at Rs. 10,000 when he filed his suit a valuation accepted by the other side. It is not suggested that, if the value of the subject-matter in suit is Rs. 10,000 or upwards, the value of the subject-matter in appeal has become different.

2. The judgment is a revising judgment and the petitioner is entitled to the leave prayed for which is accordingly granted.


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