1. This appeal relates solely to the question of the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. The general principle is laid down by the Privy Council in Phul Kumari v. Ghasham Misra I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 202 and is to the effect that the value of the action is its value to the plaintiff. If this principle be applied to the present case, the Subordinate Judge's order is clearly wrong, The validity and subsistence of plaintiff's mortgage are not disputed by the mortgagors (defendants 2 to 7) and what is in dispute is whether this mortgage right should be affected by the attachment in execution of 1st defendant's decree vide the prayer in the plaint.
2. This is the view taken by the Full Bench in Krishnaswami Naidu v. Somasundaram Chettiar I.L.R. (1906) Mad 335 and with due respect to the learned Judges, who in their Judgment in Narayana Singh v. Aiyaswami Reddi I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 602 suggested some doubt on the point, we can see nothing in the Judgment of the Privy Council above referred to, which is incompatible with it. We may also refer to the Judgment of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Khetra v. Mumtaz Begum I.L.R. (1916) A. 72 which considers the Privy Council Judgment and comes to the same conclusion to which we are inclined.
3. The case dealt with in Fisher v. Arunachellam Chettiar (1907) 19 M.L.J. 236 is easily distinguishable, as there was in that case a dispute between a mortgagor and mortgagee as to whether the plaintiff's mortgage has been discharged.
4. We must therefore set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to restore the Appeal to file and dispose of it according to law.
5. We may point out that the decree of the District Munsif in so far as it declares that plaintiff is entitled to enforce his mortgage on certain items of property appears to go beyond the plaint prayer, and requires amendment.
6. The first respondent will bear appellant's costs in this Court.