SARADA SUNDARI BASU Vs. AKRAMANNESSA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was obtained on grounds Nos. 4 and 6 of the petition which are as follows: 4. For that on a valid and correct construction of law on the subject the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have held that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. 6. For that the learned Munsif having heard all the evidence and arrived at his own findings thereon, the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in law and acted without jurisdiction in not expressing his definite conclusions thereupon.

(2.) The suit was one for redemption and the Munsif before whom it was instituted proceeded by way of a preliminary issue to decide the question whether he had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try it. Evidence was led on both sides and upon it he came to the conclusion that the debt due by plaintiff to defendant was over Rs. 1,000 and that consequently the suit was beyond his jurisdiction. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Plaintiffs appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the order and remitted the case to the lower Court for trial on the merits.

(3.) He pointed out that a redemption suit comes under Section 7, Clause ix of the Court Fees Act, and the plaint has to be stamped with court-fees payable on the principal sum assured. But Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act does not cover redemption suits so that valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction does not necessarily follow valuation for the purpose of court fees. The Allahabad and Madras High Courts say that Section 8 does not lay down that the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction must necessarily be different from that for the purpose of court-fees.