RAMAN KUNJUKRISHNAN Vs. RAMAN VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal against a second appeal, the 15th defendant is the appellant and plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant the respondents. Though there were other questions also involved in the case, the question before the second appellate court was and before us is confined to item 4 in schedule B which is part of schedule A to the plaint. The appellant claims that he is entitled to the item while respondents 1 and 2 claim that they are entitled to it.

(2.) The essential facts necessary for disposing of the case may now be stated. The first defendant conducted a chitty; and there were several subscribers to it. Four subscribers obtained decrees against him for amounts subscribed by them. One of the suits was in forma pauperis; and for the court fee payable to the Government, item 4 in schedule B was brought to sale and purchased by the appellant. Prior to that, schedule A, inclusive of schedule B, was brought to sale and purchased by the predecessors in interest of the first plaintiff and purchased by her. Shortly thereafter, the sale right was transferred to the first plaintiff; and he obtained possession of schedule A. When the appellant sought recovery of possession of item 4 in schedule B, the plaintiffs obstructed. Their obstruction was overruled, against which they filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition on 12th July 1950; and thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal on 16th August 1950 before the District Court of Trivandrum.

(3.) There were four prayers in the suit; and prayer C was for administration of the estate of the first defendant. For the purpose of jurisdiction this prayer was valued at Rs. 2000. But a fixed court he of Rs. 10 alone was paid alleging that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was incapable of valuation. The appellant appeared and disputed the correctness of the court fee paid; and the District Judge held that in prayer C the valuation for the purpose of court fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction should be the same. The District Judge consequently directed the plaintiffs to file a statement putting their own valuation on relief C for the purpose of court fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a statement valuing relief C at Rs. 400; and the District Judge then directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court since the valuation given by the plaintiffs was not sufficient for instituting the suit in the District Court. This order was passed on 29th September 1951; and the plaintiffs took back the plaint and represented it in the Court of the Munsiff at Attingal on 11th October 1951.