Skip to content


Krishna Mallar Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Malabar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in25Ind.Cas.375
AppellantKrishna Mallar
RespondentSecretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Malabar
Cases ReferredChinnammal v. Madarsa Rowther
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), section 7, clause iv - suits valuation act (vii of 1887), section 8--suit for declaratory and consequential relief--different valuations given--plaint returned for amendment--higher valuation elected by plaintiff--right to claim that court-fee should be for lower amount. - .....act the consequential relief should alone have been valued and the value under section 8 of the suits valuation act would determine the jurisdiction. as it appeared on the face of the plaint that the valuation of the consequential relief was only rs. 100, whereas there was another valuation of rs. 15,100 given, the plaint should have been returned for amendment so that the plaintiff might elect one single valuation for both purposes as required by law. it appears that the plaintiff presented his plaint with a stamp for rs. 17-8-0 and that the court returned it to the plaintiff. a few days later the plaintiff paid up the deficiency in the court-fee on rs. 15,100.2. we think in these circumstances he must be taken to have elected to value his suit for all purposes at rs. 15,100, a.....
Judgment:

1. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act in this class of suits the valuation as determinable for the computation of the Court-fee and the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. The plaint valued the suit at Rs. 15,100, but the prayer stated that the declaration was valued at Rs. 15,000 for purposes of jurisdiction and that the consequential relief--the cancellation and return of the bond-was valued at Rs. 100. Under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act the consequential relief should alone have been valued and the value under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act would determine the jurisdiction. As it appeared on the face of the plaint that the valuation of the consequential relief was only Rs. 100, whereas there was another valuation of Rs. 15,100 given, the plaint should have been returned for amendment so that the plaintiff might elect one single valuation for both purposes as required by law. It appears that the plaintiff presented his plaint with a stamp for Rs. 17-8-0 and that the Court returned it to the plaintiff. A few days later the plaintiff paid up the deficiency in the Court-fee on Rs. 15,100.

2. We think in these circumstances he must be taken to have elected to value his suit for all purposes at Rs. 15,100, a valuation which he was entitled to make, Chinnammal v. Madarsa Rowther 27 Ma. 480 : 14 M.L.J. 343, and we decline to interfere in revision with the order of the District Judge.

3. The petition is dismissed.


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