Skip to content


M. Jallaldeen Marakayar and ors. Vs. Vijayaswami Alias Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Annaswami thevar and Nineteen ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1916)ILR39Mad447
AppellantM. Jallaldeen Marakayar and ors.
RespondentVijayaswami Alias Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Annaswami thevar and Nineteen ors.
Cases ReferredIjjatulla Bhuyan v. Chandra Mohan Bannerjee
Excerpt:
madras civil courts act (iii of 1873), sections 12 and 13 - court fees act (vii of 1870), sections 7(ix)--suits valuation act (vi1 of 1887)--suit to redeem--suit in a subordinate court--valuation for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees same--court fees, rightly payable only on principal debt secured below rs. 5,000--erroneous order of subordinate court to pay court fees on total amount payable on redemption above rs. 5,000--appeal--no jurisdiction to the high court but to the district court. - - , expressly confined his decision to such cases and abstained from expressing any opinion on a case like the present......a mortgage and an amount of the principal debt was rs. 3,899-4-0. prior to the enactment of the suits valuation act, 1887, it was held in zamorin of calicut v. narayana i.l.r. (1882) mad. 284, by a full bench of this court following earlier decisions that under the provisions of the madras civil courts act the method of valuation prescribed by the court pees act for suits of this description ought to be followed in ascertaining the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. the suits valuation act has not fixed any method of valuing such suits, nor has it apparently enabled such a method to be prescribed by rule. consequently the authority of the decision in zamorin of calicut v. narayana (1882) 5 mad. 284 is unaffected, and the amount of the principal debt must be taken as.....
Judgment:

John Wallis, C.J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal lay to the District Court and not to this Court. The suit was to redeem a mortgage and an amount of the principal debt was Rs. 3,899-4-0. Prior to the enactment of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, it was held in Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana I.L.R. (1882) Mad. 284, by a Full Bench of this Court following earlier decisions that under the provisions of the Madras Civil Courts Act the method of valuation prescribed by the Court Pees Act for suits of this description ought to be followed in ascertaining the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The Suits Valuation Act has not fixed any method of valuing such suits, nor has it apparently enabled such a method to be prescribed by rule. Consequently the authority of the decision in Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana (1882) 5 Mad. 284 is unaffected, and the amount of the principal debt must be taken as determining the jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Act. The suit therefore lay in the Subordinate Court and the appeal lay to the District Court. The Subordinate Judge erroneously insisted on the payment of a court fee on Rs. 7,218-6-11, the total amount payable on redemption and the plaintiff paid the deficiency. The question then is whether this has deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal and conferred it on the High Court. Following the decision in Vasudeva v. Madhava (1893) 16 Mad. 326, we think it has not. A reference to the printed papers shows that in that case the District Munsif erroneously returned a plaint in a redemption suit as beyond his jurisdiction although it was properly valued on the principles laid down in Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana 5 Mad. 284. The plaintiff accepted the valuation and filed the suit in the Subordinate Court and the Subordinate Court entertained it no doubt on payment of the appropriate court-fee. It was held by this Court that the appeal lay none the less to the District Court, although the suit had been valued by the Subordinate Court at over Rs. 5,000. This appears to be a direct authority in support of the objection. The decision in Ijjatulla Bhuyan v. Chandra Mohan Bannerjee 34 Calc. 954, related to a case in which the plaintiff was authorized to make a tentative valuation under Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Mookerjee, J., expressly confined his decision to such cases and abstained from expressing any opinion on a case like the present. The objection is allowed with costs, and the appeal will be returned for presentation to the proper Court.


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