Skip to content


Ponnada Mallayya and anr. Vs. Ponnada Jagannadhamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad103; (1941)2MLJ567
AppellantPonnada Mallayya and anr.
RespondentPonnada Jagannadhamma and ors.
Cases Referred and Karuppanna Nadar v. Karuppa Nadar
Excerpt:
- .....v. karuppa nadar : air1939mad776 , and it is found by the lower court that the value of the shares of the plaintiffs will be not less than rs. 10,000. this suit should therefore have been instituted in the subordinate judge's court of rajahmundry and the district munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain it. the order of the district munsif is therefore set aside and he is directed to return the plaint for presentation to proper court. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The suit is for partition by persons in joint possession and it is common ground that court-fee is payable under Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. The dispute is as to the value of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction and as pointed out in Vasireddi Veeramma v. Butchayya (1926) 52 M.L.J. 381 : I.L.R. Mad. 646 in which all the decisions were considered the valuation to be adopted for the purpose of jurisdiction is the actual market value of the property in suit. To the same effect are the decisions in Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswamia Pillai : AIR1929Mad396 , and Karuppanna Nadar v. Karuppa Nadar : AIR1939Mad776 , and it is found by the lower Court that the value of the shares of the plaintiffs will be not less than Rs. 10,000. This suit should therefore have been instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Rajahmundry and the District Munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The order of the District Munsif is therefore set aside and he is directed to return the plaint for presentation to proper Court. There will be no order as to costs.


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