Skip to content


Kayathan Roche Alias G.C. Roche Vs. K. Chinnayya Roche - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad435; (1939)1MLJ425
AppellantKayathan Roche Alias G.C. Roche
RespondentK. Chinnayya Roche
Cases Referred and Karaia Nachi Bivi v. Allapichai
Excerpt:
- - allapichai (1937)1mlj572 ,are clearly distinguishable-the former because in it there was no dispute apparent as to title, and the latter because it deals only with the need to assume the truth of the facts asserted in a plaint......that must be looked to in questions of court-fee and jurisdiction. i certainly agree with the learned district munsif, that plaintiff's real purpose in this suit is to get an adjudication on the sale deed to which he refers repeatedly in his plaint. the cases quoted against this view of the law, veerappa chettiar v. arunachalam chetti (1935) 43 l.w. 334 and karaia nachi bivi v. allapichai : (1937)1mlj572 , are clearly distinguishable-the former because in it there was no dispute apparent as to title, and the latter because it deals only with the need to assume the truth of the facts asserted in a plaint. in my opinion therefore the learned subordinate judge was wrong in his view that the plaint should be valued as if it were for an injunction and nothing else, and it is he and not.....
Judgment:

King, J.

1. Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswamia Pillai : AIR1929Mad396 and Purayil Abdullah v. Subramanyan Pattar : (1936)71MLJ383 show that it is the substance of the relief claimed that must be looked to in questions of court-fee and jurisdiction. I certainly agree with the learned District Munsif, that plaintiff's real purpose in this suit is to get an adjudication on the sale deed to which he refers repeatedly in his plaint. The cases quoted against this view of the law, Veerappa Chettiar v. Arunachalam Chetti (1935) 43 L.W. 334 and Karaia Nachi Bivi v. Allapichai : (1937)1MLJ572 , are clearly distinguishable-the former because in it there was no dispute apparent as to title, and the latter because it deals only with the need to assume the truth of the facts asserted in a plaint. In my opinion therefore the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in his view that the plaint should be valued as if it were for an injunction and nothing else, and it is he and not the District Munsif who has jurisdiction. His order is therefore set aside, and the order of the learned District Munsif restored. Costs of this appeal and of the appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge to be paid by the respondent.


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