Skip to content


Chelasani Ratlayya Vs. Anne Brahmayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in91Ind.Cas.572
AppellantChelasani Ratlayya
RespondentAnne Brahmayya and ors.
Cases ReferredRachappa Subrao v. Shidappa Venkatrao
Excerpt:
civil procedure, code (act v of 1908), section 110 - appeal to his majesty in council--valuation in plaint accepted by defendant--plaintiff, whether can question valuation. - .....for purposes of jurisdiction at rs. 10,000 (see para. 7 of the plaint). this value must be the market value of the subject-matter of the suit. it cannot be the artificial valuation prescribed under section 7 of the court fees act which is inapplicable to the case as the suit is for declaration without consequential relief and, therefore, falls under ch. it, clause (17) of the court pees act. under section 12 of the civil courts act, the jurisdiction depends on the value of the subject-matter of the suit and that value (which, in that section, means market value) has been stated to be rs. 10,000. the plaintiffs are, therefore, barred by their valuation see aiagappa chatty v. nachiappan (1922) m.w.n. 683 : a.i.r.(1923) (m.) 125 : 31 m.l.t. 335 where the valuation though under the court.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty, in Council must be Rs. 10,000, or upwards: (Section 110, C.P.C). The suit was for setting aside an adoption and an alienation. The alienated properties were set forth in the schedule to the plaint and were valued at Rs. 5,000 in para. 4 of the plaint. That there are other properties affected by the adoption and by the suit is admitted and the value of all the properties was described in para. 3 of the plaint as Rs. 10,000, 30 years ago. The plaintiffs finally valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 (see para. 7 of the plaint). This value must be the market value of the subject-matter of the suit. It cannot be the artificial valuation prescribed under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act which is inapplicable to the case as the suit is for declaration without consequential relief and, therefore, falls under Ch. IT, Clause (17) of the Court Pees Act. Under Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act, the jurisdiction depends on the value of the subject-matter of the suit and that Value (which, in that section, means market value) has been stated to be Rs. 10,000. The plaintiffs are, therefore, barred by their valuation see Aiagappa Chatty v. Nachiappan (1922) M.W.N. 683 : A.I.R.(1923) (M.) 125 : 31 M.L.T. 335 where the valuation though under the Court Fees Act, was also of the market value as the suit related to sites and buildings and not lands and therefore, was governed by Section 7, Clause (v)(e) and not Clause (a) to (d). The decision of the Judicial Committee in Rachappa Subrao v. Shidappa Venkatrao 21 Bom. L.R. 489 : 48 I.A. 24 (P.C.) involves the same principle. It was held in that case that the plaintiff's valuation having been accepted by the defendant, the defendant cannot be allowed to raise the question that the value was less than Rs. 5,000 and to contend that no appeal lay to the High Court. The present case is stronger. It is not the opposite party but the plaintiff himself that wants to show that the value of the subject-matter is less than Rs. 10,000 to avoid appeal to the Privy Council, he having valued the subject-matter at Rs, 10,000 when he filed his suit, a valuation accepted by the other side. It is not suggested that, if the value of the subject matter in suit is Rs. 10,000 or upwards, the value of the subject-matter in appeal has become different.

2. The judgment is a reversing judgment and the petitioner is entitled to the leave prayed for which is accordingly granted.


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