1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Judge, Calicut, in C.M.A. No. 47 of 1930 in the matter of court fees, Plaintiff sued in redemption of a kanom with the added prayer for Rs. 1,100 by way of damages. The question for determination is whether the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is the kanom amount plus this Rs. 1,100 or the kanam amount alone. Upon the answer will depend whether the suit is triable by Sub-Judge or Munsif.
2. It has been held in Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana  5 Mad. 284 (F.B.) that in a suit for redemption of a kanom the value of the improvements is not to be calculated in as certaining the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. In Konna Panikkar v. Karunakara  16 Mad. 328 it is held that if there are two distinct causes of action, namely, the claim for redemption, and for arroars of rent, the value of the suit is the aggregate value of those two heads of relief. In Jallaldeen Marakkayar v. Vijayaswami  39 Had. 447, Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana  5 Mad. 284 (F.B.) is affirmed. The amount of the principal debt must be taken as determining the jurisdiction. In Grandhi Pothanna v. Satyananda Charyulu A.I.R.1931 Mad.479 the same rule is followed when the suit is for redemption and surplus profits obtained by the mortgagee.
3. I have myself held that in those kanom redemption suits the claim for damages is in pari materia with the claim for improvements. Govindan Nayar v. Ithaletty A.I.R.1926 Mad.764. That ruling is based upon previous rulings, and so far as I know has been subsequently differed from. It would seem therefore that the proper valuation for jurisdiction under the law is the principal amount secured, and not that amount plus the damages claimed. Whether Konna Panikkar v. Karunakara 16 Mad.328 is or is not rightly decided when the surplusage is a claim for rent, I am not required to decide. When the surplusage is a claim for damages, the law is clear.
4. The learned Judge seems to be of the same opinion, but he holds that the plaintiff has an option if he likes of treating, his two claims as distinct causes of action paying the higher court-fee, and assuming the higher valuation for jurisdiction Jallaldeen Marakkayar v. Vijayaswami  39 Had.447 is authority for holding that an erroneous payment of court fee cannot affect jurisdiction. There the plaintiff paid on Rs. 7,218 when he need only have paid on Rs. 3,899, but the appeal nevertheless was referred to the District Court, the High Court refusing to entertain it.
5. Finally it is argued that this Court will not interfere in revision if the Subordinate Judge is directed by the District Judge to hear a suit which by the provision of Section 15, Civil P.C., should be heard by the Munsif; because although the hearing by the Subordinate Judge in fringes that section, he nevertheless has jurisdiction to hear the suit. I think it must be hold that the Court acts with material irregularity when it sends a suit for trial to the wrong Court.
6. The petition must be allowed with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.