SUMITHRA Vs. KAMALA BAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff to the suit out of which this revision arises is the revision petitioner. The suit is one for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for separate allotment of 1/4th share which the plaintiff claims she is entitled to. Defendants 2 and 3 have filed written statements supporting the plaintiff's case. First defendant contests the suit. The suit is still pending and it is common case before me that evidence has been closed in the case and arguments are over. At that stage it seems the lower court passed the order under revision, by which it took the view that issues 5 to 7 should be answered before the suit is disposed of. Taking that view the learned Munsiff further said that a finding on these Issues could be recorded only after obtaining a Commissioner's report. By the order under revision the lower court directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 300/- as Commission batta, and said that on deposit of the above said amount a commission would be issued for assessing the market value of the plaint schedule properties.

(2.) Issues 5 to 7 are as follows :

(3.) It is contended before me on behalf of the plaintiff-revision petitioner that in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 -- shortly stated the Act -- and particularly the provisions in Chap. III thereof, the lower court has no jurisdiction to reassess the market value of the properties, be it for the purpose of determining the correct court fee payable on the plaint, or be it for ascertaining its pecuniary jurisdiction. Learned counsel referred me to the decision of this Court in Janaki Amma v. Krishnan (1978 Ker LT 463) and the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in C. C. Reddy v. K. C. Reddy ((1968) 2 Andh WR 616): JLR (1969) Andh Pra 1042. These decisions seem to support the contention as aforesaid.