MUHAMMAD ABDUL MAJID Vs. ALA BUX ALIAS ALLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal. Mr. Narain Prasad who appears for the plaintiff-respondent, argues that the appeal does not lie to this Court but to the Court of the District Judge. The suit out of which the appeal has arisen was a suit for accounts and in paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and payment of Court-fee was Rs. 2,500. The suit was accordingly laid in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra. The learned Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 5,796-9-3. We have now this appeal by the defendant and the appeal is valued in this Court at the amount which has been awarded in the decree of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) Mr. Narain Prasad argues, and we think correctly, that the appeal must lie to the Court of the District Judge. If the valuation as set out in the plaint is to determine the forum of appeal then Mr. Narain Prasad's contention is undoubtedly correct.

(3.) Mr. Peary Lal Banerji, on the other hand, has referred us to a Full Bench ruling of the Calcutta High Court to be found in Ijjatulla V/s. Chandra Mohan (1907) 34 Cal. 954. He also refers us to a Bench decision of this Court to be found in Goswami Sri Raman V/s. Bohra Desraj (1910) 32 All. 222. On the other hand, our attention has been called on a ruling of this Court in Madho Das y Ramji Pathak (1894) 16 All. 286, and also another ruling of a Bench of this Court in Sudarshan Das Shastry V/s. Ram Prasad (1911) 33 All. 97. We are also referred to a judgment of a Pull Bench of the Madras High Court which is to be found in Kannayya Chetti V/s. Venkata Narasayya (1917) 40 Mad. 1. It appears to us, after a perusal of these rulings and also of the, law on the subject as contained in Section 7 of the Court Pees Act and in Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act of 1887 that the preliminary objection must be upheld.