C RAMASWAMI Vs. KUNJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovering possession of properties alienated by defendant 1 his mother and natural guardian. The suit is based on the allegations that defendant 1, who was an illiterate woman inexperienced in life was influenced by her brother to alienate the properties for very low consideration in his favour and in favour of some of his nominees and that the alienations were not therefore binding on him. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 7(v), Court-fees Act, at Rs. 2689-6-0 and gave the same valuation for purposes of jurisdiction also and paid court-fee thereon. The defendants contended in the lower Court that the plaintiff should have asked for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by his mother as guardian and paid court-fee under Section 7(iv)(a). The trial Court took this matter up as a preliminary question and decided that the plaint should be construed as one asking for a prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds and that therefore the plaintiff should be called upon to pay court-fee under Section 7(iv)(a), Court-fees Act. In reaching this conclusion be relied upon some decisions of this Court, one reported in Doraiswami Reddiar v. Thanga-velu Mudaliar, A. I. R. (16) 1929 Mad. 668 : (119 I. Clause 38) a decision of Venkatasubba Rao J. and another ruling reported in Venkatakrishniah v. Shaik Alli Sahib, A. I. R. (25) 1938 Mad. 921: (1881. Clause 8) and also in Devaki Antarjanam v. Mariakutti Umma, 59 M. L. W. 464: (A. I. R. (34) 1947 Mad 130).

(2.) The present revision petition is filed against that order of the District Munsif by the aggrieved plaintiff. The validity of this order is attacked by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the view taken by the trial Court is not sound and sustainable having regard to a number of decisions of this Court which lay down the principle that in cases similar to this the plaint need not contain a prayer for cancellation or for setting aside the sale deeds.

(3.) The short question that has to be considered by me therefore is whether the plaintiff's valuation of the suit under Section 7(v), Court-fees Act, is correct or whether he is bound to frame the suit as one under Section 7(iv)(a) for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner cited to me a number of authorities and contended that the decisions relied on by the trial Court did not lay down the correct law and were in conflict with some of the Bench decisions of our High Court.