Skip to content


Vannavalli Seshagiri Row and Pammela Amenayya Sastrulu Vs. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Receiver - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1914Mad98; 24Ind.Cas.374; (1914)26MLJ573
AppellantVannavalli Seshagiri Row and Pammela Amenayya Sastrulu
RespondentGopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Receiver
Cases ReferredDistrict Judge (Chalasamy Ramiah v. Chalasamy Ramasami
Excerpt:
.....fees..........for the petitioner it is argued that the subordinate judge was right in applying section 8 of the suits valuation act (vii of 1887).2. the ruling relied on by the district judge (chalasamy ramiah v. chalasamy ramasami (1912) m.l.t. 155 (does not in my opinion afford any support for his view that the present suit is one of which the subject matter is land so as to bring it within the scope of section 14 of the madras civil courts act (iii of 1873) and that this section governs the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. at the time when the latter act was passed, the wording and arrangement of section 7 of the court fees act was such that it was at any rate open to argument that a suit of this kind brought by the landlord to evict a tenant was for the possession of land and fell under.....
Judgment:

Ayling, J.

1. The only question for disposal is as to the correct valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The District Judge has held that it is governed by Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act; for the petitioner it is argued that the Subordinate Judge was right in applying Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887).

2. The ruling relied on by the District Judge (Chalasamy Ramiah v. Chalasamy Ramasami (1912) M.L.T. 155 (does not in my opinion afford any support for his view that the present suit is one of which the subject matter is land so as to bring it within the scope of Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873) and that this section governs the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. At the time when the latter Act was passed, the wording and arrangement of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act was such that it was at any rate open to argument that a suit of this kind brought by the landlord to evict a tenant was for the possession of land and fell under Clause (v). If so, it was probably meant to be covered by Section 44 of Act III of 1873. Assuming that this was so and that a suit like the present one fell under Clause (v) of Section 7 as that section originally stood, the enactment of Act VII of 1887 made no difference for such a suit Would be excluded from Section 8 of the same. But a very important change was effected by Act VI of 1905. This Act amended the Court Fees Act by introducing in Clause (xi) of Section 7 a new category of suit ' (cc) for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant.'

3. The present suit undoubtedly falls under this category and although Respondent's vakil may be right in contending that, before the Amending Act, it fell under Clause (V), the effect of the amendment. was clearly to take it out of Clause (V)(if it were even there) and put it into Clause (XI)(cc). The indirect effect of the amendment would then be to enlarge the scope of Section 8 of Act VII of 1887 which applies to all suits other than those referred to in Section 7, Clauses (V)(VI), (IX) and (X)(d) of the Court Fees Act. It certainly cannot be contended now that this suit is not covered by Section 8 of' the Suits Valuation Act. Whether this effect was intentional or due to in advertance may be a matter of speculation but is of no importance. The Acts must be construed as they stand.

4. Adopting the most favourable view for Respondent viz., that Section 14 of the Madras Civil Court's Act at the time of its enactment was intended to cover a case of this kind, in the event of conflict, I think preference must be given to Section 8, of the Suits Valuation Act as the later enactment Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act is referred to in the Suits Valuation Act, but I find nothing to indicate that Section 8 should be read subject to its provisions. '

5. I must therefore set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the Subordinate Judge. The Petitioner will get his costs in this and the District Court from Respondent.


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