JOSEPH CLEMENT Vs. LEELAMMA XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition involves a question of court fee, the petitioner being the plaintiff. THE suit was one for injunction; and the plaintiff gave Rs. 5001/-as the jurisdiction value. And for purpose of court fee, he adopted Rs. 150/- as the value under S. 27 (c) of the Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. THE Subordinate Judge directed that the petitioner should pay court fee on the jurisdiction value adopted by him, that is, on Rs. 5001/-, and not on Rs. 150/ -. In support of this conclusion the subordinate judge relied on the decision of Vaidialingam J. in Joseph v. Joseph (1964 KLT. 798 ). THE counsel of the petitioner contended, when the revision petition came before one of us, that the decision of Vaidialingam J. required reconsideration and therefore the revision petition was referred to a Division bench. That is how the case is before us.

(2.) THE counsel of the petitioner has drawn our attention to the recent decision of a single judge of this Court in Kalu Parvathi v. G. Krishnan (1969 KLJ. 599 ). THE learned judge has, inter alia, considered an earlier decision of this Court in Narayani Amma v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1962 KLJ. 1270) by one of us in a similar case and has also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in 5. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar (1958 S. C. R. 1021 ). THE Supreme Court has considered the effect of S. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act and observed: "there can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of S. 8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court fees and that is natural enough. THE computation of court fees in suits falling under S. 7 (iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. THE value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. THE result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa. " What was decided in Narayani Amma's case was also the same "that the value for purpose of jurisdiction shall follow the value to be given for purpose of court fee, not vice versa" though the decision of the Supreme Court does not appear to have been noted in that case. In the light of the observation of the Supreme Court extracted above, it is clear that, though the jurisdiction value and the value for purpose of court fee should be the same, the value for purpose of court fee need not follow the jurisdiction value. On the other hand, the value for purpose of court fee is the primary value and the jurisdiction value must follow the former. This is the decision in Kalu Parvathi's case too. It follows that the decision of Vaidialingam J. in joseph's case is not right if it means that the valuation for purpose of court fee must follow the jurisdiction value. But there is an observation in the said ruling that "if the plaintiff decides to prosecute the suit in the subordinate Court, the value for jurisdiction purposes. . . , will he the amount in respect of which court fee also will have to be paid," which indicates that the learned judge does not mean so. This is made clearer when Vaidialingam j. gives time to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, if he wanted, to a lower forum on the basis of his valuation for purpose of court fee.