(POTHI) ANNAPURNAYYA Vs. (POTHI) NAGARATNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada on C.M.P. No. 471 of 1923 in O.S. No. 6 of 1923. Petitioner filed a plaint valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 and with a Court-fee of Rs. 100 on the assumption that he was at liberty to put his own value on the suit which was for the appointment of a Receiver, and for an injunction restraining the defendant, a widow from wasting her estate. In the light of Nandan Mal V/s. Salig Ram A.I.R. 1922 Lah. 236. and Arunachalam Chetty V/s. Rangasawmy Pillai [1915] 38 Mad. 922 the learned Subordinate Judge has held that plaintiff must pay an ad valorem fee and that is now admitted. The order concludes: In the present case he has valued the suit as Rs. 10,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. So he cannot give another valuation for purposes of Court- fee.

(2.) To this petitioner objects urging that he is at liberty to give another value for purposes of Court-fee. I see from C.M.C. No. 942 of 1923 that the petitioner applied to amend his plaint and the Subordinate Judge ordered that he should first pay the Court-fee.

(3.) It is difficult to say that the order of the Court is ultra vires or that he has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity. Order 7, Rule 1(i) requires that a plaint shall contain a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of Court-fees. It is not contemplated that the subject-mater shall be given two values, one purely arbitrary and fanciful for the purposes of jurisdiction and one in strict conformity to the real value for the purposes of Court-fees.