Skip to content


Chilukuri Narasimhacharyulu Garu Vs. Zamindar of Bobbili and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in52Ind.Cas.1001
AppellantChilukuri Narasimhacharyulu Garu
RespondentZamindar of Bobbili and ors.
Cases Referred and Kanaran v. Komappan
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), section 12, applicability of - civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vii, rule 10, order xliii, rule 1(a)--valuation, decision, as to, to determine jurisdiction--plaint, return of, for presentation to proper court--appeal, whether lies. - .....is the appellant, valued the lands referred to in the plaint at rs. 100 and filed the suit in the district munsif's court. objection was taken as to jurisdiction on the ground that the lands were greatly undervalued and that their proper value was beyond the court's pecuniary jurisdiction. the district munsif found on the evidence that the lands were worth rs. 4,000 and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court.2. this order returning the plaint is appealable under order xliii, rule l, clause (a), and an appeal was filed in the district court. the district judge, relying on section 12, clause 1, of the court fees act, held that no appeal lay as the decision of the district munsif as to the valuation was final.3. i am of opinion that the decision of the.....
Judgment:

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, valued the lands referred to in the plaint at Rs. 100 and filed the suit in the District Munsif's Court. Objection was taken as to jurisdiction on the ground that the lands were greatly undervalued and that their proper value was beyond the Court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The District Munsif found on the evidence that the lands were worth Rs. 4,000 and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.

2. This order returning the plaint is appealable under Order XLIII, rule l, Clause (a), and an appeal was filed in the District Court. The District Judge, relying on Section 12, Clause 1, of the Court Fees Act, held that no appeal lay as the decision of the District Munsif as to the valuation was final.

3. I am of opinion that the decision of the District Judge cannot be supported. As was pointed in Peari Shah v. Surja Mal 16 Ind. Cas. 575 : 17 C.W.N. 603 : 16 C.L.J. 371 Section 12 of the Court Fees Act has no application where the valuation is made by the Court for the purpose of determining the question whether the suit is within the pecuniary limits of the Court's jurisdiction. All the authorities have been reviewed by Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ., and I entirely agree with the decision, which is in accordance with the view taken by this Court in Annamalai Chetti v. Cloete 4 M.P 204 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 977 and Kanaran v. Komappan 14 M.P 169 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 120

4. I set aside the decree of the lower Court and direct it to dispose of the appeal according to law. Respondents' will pay appellant's costs.


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