RAJAMMAL Vs. SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question here is whether the appellate Court could remand the suit to decide the sufficiency of court-fees that was paid without any objection or order in regard to this issue. THE 1st respondent filed suit for declaration and injunction. THE value of the suit was stated to be Rs.2,705.50 and the suit was filed before the D1strict Munsif, Vedasandur. THE appellants herein who were the defendants did not raise any objection relating to court-fee. THE suit was dismissed on a detailed consideration of the materials before the Court. THE following three issues alone were framed:

(2.) THE 1st respondent herein filed an appeal before the Principal D1strict Judge at Dindigul. THE learned Judge formulated the following issues for consideration based on the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal: " (1) "Whether the appellant/ plaintiff is the wife of Chellappa Gounder" " (2) Whether the settlement deed dated 25.1.1996 under Ex.A-2 and the release deed under Ex.A-3 are genuine and valid" If so, whether the appellant/ plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties" " (3) Whether the plaintiff/ appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties" " (4) To what relief is the appellant/ plaintiff entitled" THEreafter, the learned Judge proceeded to consider whether the Court below had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He discussed the value of each item of the suit property in detail and came to the conclusion that the value given cannot be correct and if the correct value is assessed, the Court below will have have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. THErefore, he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit to the lower Court to test the value of the suit properties to frame an issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction and if necessary, to return the plaint with a direction to present the suit before the proper forum. Aggrieved by this, the defendants have filed the present C.M.A.

(3.) IN this decision reported in Ramachandran v. Anjammal (1963)2 MLJ. 59 the learned Judge in a short judgment, considered the question whether the District Judge could suo motu take up and scrutinise the matter of court-fee. IN this, the decision reported in Janaki Ammal v. Rangachari (1960)2 MLJ. 527 referred to above was also referred to and then, the learned Judge holds thus: