1. This is a suit for redemption of a kanom and purankadam wherein it was agreed that Rs. 1,984-2 4 and 493 paras, 2 edangalais, and 2 nalis of paddy valued at Rs. 281-13-5 is fixed as the amount of the purankaclam. The question is whether the Court-fee payable on the plaint is the amount stated in the document, Ex. B. - if so, it is undoubtedly within the jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif or whether the defendant is entitled to say that the plaintiff ought to value the paddy not at the price assessed by the parties at the time Ex. B. was entered into, but at the market price on the day when the plaint was presented. The market value of the paddy per para in Ex. B works out at 10 annas a para whereas the learned District Munsif (who went into the question as a separate issue has found that the market price at the time of the presentation of the plaint was 12 annas a para. If the latter valuation is to be adopted, then the valuation of the suit is above Rs. 3,000. If the other valuation is to be adopted, the valuation of the suit is below Rs. 3,000. The learned vakil for the petitioner argues two points : (1) that it is not the price in the document but the price at the date of suit which has to determine the Court-fee payable. The matter is governed by Section 7(ix) of the Court Fees Act of 1870, wherein it is provided that in a redemption suit Court-fee is to be paid according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage. Even before the Act, there was an authority in this Court to that effect. Vide Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana  5 Mad. 284. Since the Act, there is the authority of Echaran Patter v. Appu Patter  19 Mad. 16 and Chappan v. Ram  37 Mad. 420. In my view therefore the learned District Munsif was right in holding as he did that the sums of money in Ex. B ought to be taken as the principal money expressed to be secured under the Court Fees Act, Section 7(ix). That disposes of the first point.
2. The second point taken is that the amount on which Court fee is paid is not necessarily to be taken as the amount for purposes of jurisdiction. Mr. P.S. Narayanaswami Aiyer points out that in Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, matters falling under Section 7(ix) of the Court Fees Act are expressly excepted. As to this point he admits that I am concluded by the authority of a Bench of this Court in Jallaldeen Marakayar v. Vijayaswami  37 Mad. 447 wherein it was held that as the Suits Valuation Act has not fixed any method of valuing a redemption suit, the authority of Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana  5 Mad. 284 remains unaffected and the amount of the principal debt must be taken as determining the jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Act. There is apparently a recent dissenting judgment in Sarada Sundari Basu v. Akramanessa Khatim : AIR1924Cal783 , where this Madras decision is disapproved arid I am asked to refer this matter to a Bench in order that the two decisions may be effectively examined. It seems to me that as I have decided the first point against the petitioner the second point does not really arise; because if the value of the paddy is to be taken at the price agreed between the parties on the date of Ex. B, as I have held, there is no question that the amount is below Rs. 3,000 and, therefore, within the monetary jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif. Even taking Mr. Narayanaswami Iyer's valuation it exceeds Rs. 3,000, by a very small amount. For these reasons, I am not disposed to refer the matter to a Bench, and the Civil Revision Petition must in accordance with the above view be dismissed with costs. As to the amount which may be decreed to the plaintiff on the basis of Ex, B. I express no opinion.