CHINNA KUNJUKUNJU Vs. KUTTY NEELAKANTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been placed before us for orders as to whether their proper venue is this Court, or the respective District Courts to which the courts which passed the judgments and the decrees appealed against are subordinate. The question has arisen on account of the provision in S.13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 (Presidents Act No. I of 1957) that where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed seven thousand and five hundred Rupees, from the original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judges Court shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court. The Kerala Civil Courts Act repealed the Madras Civil Courts Act 1873 (Madras Act III of 1873), as in force in the Malabar District referred to in

(2.) The decree appealed against in A. S. No. 104 of 1957 was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Attingal on 6th July, 1956 and the suit in which it was made was instituted before the Trivandrum District Court in 1953. Therefrom that suit was transferred to the Attingal Subordinate Judges Court when that court was established in November 1954. Likewise the decree appealed against in A. S. No. 105 of 1957 was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Attingal on 11th October 1956 in a suit instituted before the Trivandrum District Court in 1953 and transferred to the Subordinate Judges Court, Attingal in November 1954. The third appeal, A S. No. 125 of 1957, arises from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottappalam on 31st August 1956 in a suit instituted before that court in 1952. In each of the suits giving rise to the appeals the valuation of the subject matter exceeded Rs. 5,000/-, but was below Rs. 7.500/-. In this Court each appeal is valued as the suit wherefrom it arises was valued before the court of first instance. Under the T-C Civil Courts Act, 1951, the pecuniary limit of the Munsiffs jurisdiction was Rs 3.000/-, all suits whose valuation exceeded that limit had to be filed in the District Court or the Subordinate Judges Court, as the case may be and appeals against the decrees and orders passed by those courts lay to the High Court. When the suits giving rise to A. S. Nos. 104 of 1957 and 105 of 1957 were instituted and when the decrees in those cases were passed the law which governed those suits and appeals therefrom was the T-C Civil Courts Act, 1951 Under the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 appeals exceeding the valuation of Rs. 5,000/- had to be filed in the High Court and judged by the law in force in the Malabar District on the date the suit giving rise to A.S. No. 125 of 1957 was instituted (as also on the date the decree in that suit was passed) the appeal lay to the High Court. By an amendment of the Madras Civil Courts Act, by Act VII of 1956, the figure Rs. 5,000/- occurring in S.13 of the main Act was substituted by the figure Rs. 10,000/- but that Amending Act was brought into force only from 1st April, 1957, five months after the States Reorganisation and we are not therefore concerned with that change.

(3.) The question that arises for our decision now is whether the venue for appeals against the three decrees appealed against should be determined with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 or with respect to the corresponding provisions in the Travancore-Cochin and the Madras Civil Courts Acts. If the former law applies the proper forum for appeals against the decrees concerned in A.S. Nos. 104 of 1957 and 105 of 1957 is the District Court of Trivandrum and that for the decree concerned in A. S. No. 125, the District Court of Palghat. If the latter Acts applied all three appeals have to be held to be properly laid in this court.