Skip to content


Arogya Udayan Vs. Appachi Rowthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad543
AppellantArogya Udayan
RespondentAppachi Rowthan and ors.
Excerpt:
court fees act - act vii of 1870, section 8--valuation of suit--suit for an account--petition to increase valuation after finding by commissioner--increase to amount exceeding courts jurisdiction--return of plaint for presentation to proper court--material irregularity. - - we may add that to hold otherwise would lead to objectionable consequences in that it would enable a plaintiff by merely altering the valuation to get his suit transferred even at a late stage (as in this very case) from the court in which it was rightly instituted to another court in which he might think he had a better chance of success.1. this is a suit for an account and in such a suit the valuation for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction does not disentitle the plaintiff to recover in the suit such higher amount as the evidence may show he is entitled to. the only restriction is that he cannot execute the decree without paying such additional court fee as may be due on the amount decreed. the valuation of the suit in the present case was made by the plaintiff in the bond fide belief that his valuation was correct, and in law, that valuation determined the grade of court which had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. the valuation made indicated the district munsif's court as the proper court and the district munsif was therefore legally seized of the case. a revision of that valuation by the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

1. This is a suit for an account and in such a suit the valuation for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction does not disentitle the plaintiff to recover in the suit such higher amount as the evidence may show he is entitled to. The only restriction is that he cannot execute the decree without paying such additional Court fee as may be due on the amount decreed. The valuation of the suit in the present case was made by the plaintiff in the bond fide belief that his valuation was correct, and in law, that valuation determined the grade of Court which had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The valuation made indicated the District Munsif's Court as the proper Court and the District Munsif was therefore legally seized of the case. A revision of that valuation by the plaintiff cannot be permitted so as to oust the jurisdiction of such Court. In the present case the revision of the valuation had that effect, and the District Munsif returned the plaint and it was presented to the Subordinate Judge's Court. Such a revision was unnecessary in the interest of the plaintiff, as already stated by us, and the District Munsif acted with material irregularity in permitting it. In our opinion the Subordinate Judge took a correct view of the law in refusing to receive the amended plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction continued in the Distinct Munsif and that he ought to try the suit. We may add that to hold otherwise would lead to objectionable consequences in that it would enable a plaintiff by merely altering the valuation to get his suit transferred even at a late stage (as in this very case) from the Court in which it was rightly instituted to another Court in which he might think he had a better chance of success. We allow the revision petition and dismiss the appeal. We set aside the order of the District Munsif permitting the amendment of the plaint, direct him to receive the plaint, strike out the amendment and resume the trial of the suit under its original number. Plaintiff must pay the costs of respondents in the appeal and revision petition in this Court.


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