MADDIPATI RAMANNA ALIAS TATABBAYI Vs. MADDIPATI SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appln. is filed Under Section 152 & Order 6 Rule 17, Civil P. C. for amendment of the plaint & the memo. of appeal sought to be filed in this Ct. in the following circumstances. The petnr. brought a suit in the Ct. of the subordinate Judge, Ellore for partition of the joint family properties between him & the resps. herein & for separate possession of half the share to be allotted to him. The suit as originally filed was valued under Article 17 B of Schedule II, Court Fees Act, & a fixed C. F. of Rs. 100 was paid on the basis of the pltf. being in joint possession of the suit properties along with the defts. The suit properties were valued at Rs. 11603 for the purpose of jurisdiction. On an objection taken as regards the C. P., the trial Ct. decided as a preliminary issue that the suit should not be regarded as one falling under Article 17 B of Schedule 2 but should be valued Under Section 7(5), Court Fees Act, on the ground that the allegations in the plaint did not disclose that the pltf. was in joint possession along with the defts. In that view of the matter the trial Ct. directed the pltf. to value the suit Under Section 7(5) & pay the deficit C. F. on that basis. The matter was taken up by the pltf. to this Ct. in 'C. Rule P. No. 1637 of 1948', & this Ct. by its order dated 26-11-1948 upheld the correctness of the finding of the trial Ct. When the matter went back to the trial Ct., the pltf. applied for amending the plaint valuation so as to reduce it to Rs. 4278 to bring it into conformity with the order of the trial Ct. & he was allowed to do so. The suit was thereafter heard & decided on the merits.

(2.) The pltf. being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Ct. has sought to file an appeal in this Ct. against it. On an objection taken by the office that the appeal does not lie to this Ct. but to the district Ct., the present petn. is filed to restore the original valuation by way of amendment. At the outset it must be mentioned that when Mr. Narasaraju, the learned counsel for the petnrs. was confronted with the difficulty of applying the provisions of either Section 152 or Order 6, Rule 17, he conceded that the present petn. cannot be governed either by Section 152 or Order 6 Rule 17. Obyiously, the provisions of Section 152 cannot apply to this petn. because that section deals only with amendment of decrees, while Order 6 Rule 17 deals with amendment of pleadings & can have no bearing on the question of amending the valuation now. He had therefore to fall back upon Section 151, Civil P. C. & invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Ct. to grant him leave to restore the original valuation.

(3.) The first contention raised by Mr. Narasaraju in support of this petn. is that though the valuation was revised in obedience to the order of the Ct. & C. F. paid on the basis of the revised valuation still it is the original valuation that determines the forum of appeal, & it is the market value of the property that should govern the jurisdictional value & that his client is prepared to pay the 'ad valorem' C. F. on that footing both in the lower Ct. as well as in this Ct. I find it difficult to accept this contention. Under Section 14, Madras Civil Courts Act, in suits for recovery of immoveable property, the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is the same as that adopted for purposes of C. F. provided by Section 7, Court Fees Act. So it cannot be disputed that Under Section 14, Madras Civil Courts Act, we cannot adopt a valuation for purposes of jurisdiction different from that adopted for the purpose of C. P. In this context the following passage in the referring judgment in 'Kannayya Chetti v. Venkatanarasayya', (40 Mad 1), is apposite.