B S NAGARAJ Vs. S NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is, whether the value for the purpose of payment of court-fees, should also be the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, in a suit falling under S.26(c) of the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') .

(2.) The facts which lie behind this petition are as follows: The 1st respondent before me, instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge at Shimoga, for permanent injunction complaining interference from the petitioner. The suit was valued at Rs.100 for the purpose of payment of court fees under S.26(c) of the Act and the court fee was paid accordingly But for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit was valued at Rs.15,000 being the market value of the suit schedule property. The petitioner raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Judge's Court contending that there cannot be two valuations; one for court fees and another for jurisdiction, in rescect of a suit falling under S.26(c) of the Act. He further contended that in such a suit, the value for court fees should be the value for jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge while repelling that contention held that under S.50(1) of the Act, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction should be the market value of the suit property and not the value as determined for the purpose of payment of court-fees. He therefore held that the suit was properly instituted in his Court. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel ior the petitioner pressed before me the same contentions which were not found favour by the learned Civil Judge. According to him, the suit ought to have been instituted before the Munsiff's Court, regard being had to its valuation.