KUNJANUJAN ALIAS NARAYANAN NAMBOORIPAD Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBOORIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant 1 in O.S. 98 of 1953, on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Irinjalakuda, has brought this revision against the decision of the Additional District Judge of Trichur, in C.M.A. 35 of 1954, by which the learned Judge set aside the order made by the District Munsiff to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Under the compromise decree in O.S. 49 of 1121 on the file of the Anjikaimal District Court, the Illom of the plaintiff and the defendants had got divided itself into six branches, but that decree kept certain properties in common for the maintenance and upkeep of the family temples. The compromise decree further provided that the management of those properties and temples should go in rotation among the senior members of the six branches of the Illom. At the time of the institution of the present suit, the petitioner, that is, defendant 1, was in management and the plaintiffs suit is to remove him from management and to install in office the person next entitled to the management. The relief of removal alone is valued in the plaint and the plaintiff estimated the value of the said relief at Rs. 100 and paid ad valorem Court Fee thereon which came to Rs. 7-8-0.

(2.) Defendant 1, among others, contested the suit and joined issue with the plaintiff not only on the merits, but also on the question whether proper court fee has been paid on the plaint and whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Issue 2 raised by the learned District Munsiff related to Court Fee and issue 3 to the question of jurisdiction.

(3.) These issues were heard preliminarily and the court held that the proper court fee leviable on the plaint was the fixed fee of Rs. 40 prescribed in Art. VIII-1(b) of Schedule II of Travancore Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125 (Act II of 1125) and that as the plaint showed that the properties set apart for the maintenance of the temples yielded annual profits to the tune of 500 paras of paddy and Rs. 6-15-0, the suit cannot be entertained in the Munsiffs Court as the market value of the properties calculated at ten times the annual profits exceeded the Munsiffs pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 3,000. The plaint was, therefore, ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court with the direction that the Court Fee paid in the Munsiffs Court will be given credit in case it is presented before the proper court within two weeks from the date of its return.