ARUMUGA MUDALIAR Vs. VENKATACHALA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition affords a good example of the regrettable delays to which litigation has now become subject owing to questions of Court-fee and jurisdiction having become a common feature in the Subordinate Courts which take years for their determination. In this case the suit was of a common enough kind and was brought in 1928. At the end of 1932 it remains still to be decided which is the proper Court to try it. The plaintiff had bought some property from the 2nd defendant and his mother for Rs. 3,700. The 1 defendant obtained a decree for Rs. 1,170 in 1927 against the 2nd defendant alone and attached that property. The plaintiff preferred a claim in execution which was dismissed. Within the year allowed for a suit he brought this suit impleading the decree-holder, the 1 defendant and the judgment-debtor, the 2nd defendant. In the plaint he set out these facts as affording the cause of action and prayed (here the trouble begins) (1) to cancel the order, dated 6 October, 1928, on the claim petition, (2) to declare the plaintiff's title to the property under his sale deeds, (3) to raise the attachment, and (4) for a permanent injunction against the execution being continued to sale. It will be observed that although the plaintiff made four prayers, the substance of the whole matter was that his property had been illegally attached and he wanted that to be avoided; all else was mere words. The first and third prayers mean the same thing that the plaintiff wanted the claim order avoided. The fourth prayer is the consequence of that and the second is incidental to it. In this suit the plaintiff paid a Court-fee of Rs. 10 under Seheudle II, Art. 17 of the Court Fees Act. That this was right there is now no question. The matter is set at rest by the decision of the Privy Council in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra (1907) L.R. 35 I.A. 22 : I.L.R. 35 Cal. 202 : 17 M.L.J. 618 (P.C.) a very similar case in which their Lordships point out that in spite of unnecessary prayers the substance of the suit should be looked at to determine what the Court-fee payable is.

(2.) But the question was raised as to the proper Court for purposes of jurisdiction which was to try this suit. One would have thought at this distance of time that there can be no arguable question on such a matter. But not only has it been argued but while the District Munsif held following Narayanan Singh v... Aiyasami Reddi (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 602 : 29 M.L.J. 728 that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the value for purposes of jurisdiction is according to him the market value of the property which is more than Rs. 3,000 as the plaintiff admittedly bought it for Rs. 3,700, the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal held following . Krishnasami Naidu V/s. Somasundaram Ckettiar (1907) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 335 : 17 M.L.J. 95 (F.B.) that the value for jurisdiction is the amount of the debt Rs. 1,170; that even if it be considered to be the value of the property it was not more than one-half of Rs. 3,700, the market value, viz., Rs. 1,850 as a result of the Madras amendment to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act; but that in his view the value of the land should be computed for purposes of jurisdiction according to Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, i.e., at 10 times the assessment in which case the whole value would be less than Rs. 3,000.

(3.) In this Court the learned Counsel for the petitioner has addressed a very able argument that the view of the Munsif is right. He certainly has one or two decisions which would seem to support by parity of reasoning his argument that in a suit like this which must be deemed a declaratory suit respecting land the proper value for purposes of jurisdiction is the full market value of that land and not either the value as determined under Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act or half the market value according to the Madras amendment to Section 7(iv)(c). The decisions he relies upon are Vasireddi Veeramma V/s. Butchayya (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 646 : 52 M.L.J. 381 and Chalasamy Rainiah V/s. Chalasaniy Ramaswami (1912) 13 I. C. 903 which it relies on and follows. On the other hand the respondents learned advocate argues that the Subordinate Judge's view is right and that the value for purposes of jurisdiction in the present suit is the amount of the debt Rs. 1,170 and even if the subject-matter is taken to be the land its value should be computed as prescribed by Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act which adopts the valuation in Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act for purposes of jurisdiction in all cases where the subject-matter of the suit is land, houses or gardens.