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.
2. Plaintiff sued in redemption of a kanom with the added prayer for Rs. 1,100 by way of damages.
3. The question for determination ig v.whether the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is the kanom amount plus this R3, 1,1X0 or the kanom amount slone. Upon the answer will depend whether the suit is triable by the Sub-Judge or the Munsif.
4. It has been held in Zamorin of Calient v. Narayana 5 M. 284 that in a suit for redemption of a kanom the value of the imporvements is not to be calculated in ascertaining the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction.
5. In Konna Panikar v. Karunakara 16 M. 328 it is held that if there are two distinct causes of action, namely, the claim for redemption, and for arrears of rent, the value of the suit is the aggregate value of these two heads of relief.
6. In Jallaldeen Marakayar v. Vijayaswami 16 M.328, Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana 5 M. 284 is affirmed. The amount of the principal debt must be taken as determining the jurisdiction.
7. In Grandhi Pothanna v. Satyananda Charyitlu 132 Ind. Cas317 : 33 L. W.785 : Ind. Rul. (1931) Mad. 669 : 60 M.L.J. 698; A.I.R. 1931 Mad. 479 the same rule is followed when tie suit is for redemption and surplus profits obtained by the mortgagee.
8. I have myself held that ia these kanom redemption suits the claim for damages is in pari materia with a claim for improvements: Govindan Nayar v. Ithalety 50 M.L.J. 493. That ruling is based upon previous ruling, and so far as I know has not been subsequently differed from.
9. It would seem, therefore, that the proper valuation for jurisdiction under the law is the principal amount secured, and to hit amount plus the damages claimed. Whether Konna Panikar v. Karunakara 16 M. 328 is or is not rightly decided when the surplusage is a claim for rent, I am not required to decide. When the surplus age is a claim for damages, the law is clear.
10. The learned Judge seems to be of the some opinion, but he holds that the plaintiff has an option if he likes of treating his two claims as distinct cautse of action, paying the higher court-fee, and assuming the higher valuation for jurisdiction.
11. Jallaldeen Marakayar v. Vijayaswami 28 Ind. Cas. 624 : 30 M. 447 : (1915) M.W.N. 239 : 29 M.L.J. 142 is authority for holding that an erroneous payment of court-fee cannot effect 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.
12. 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 Procedure Code, should be heard by the Munsif, because although the hearing by the Subordinate Judge infringes that section, he nevertheless has jurisdiction to hear the suit, I think it mustr be held teat the court acts with material irregularity when it sends a suit for trial to the wrong court.
13. The petition must be allowed with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.