VASIREDDI VEERAMMA Vs. MARUPUDI BUTCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the Lower Court holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's plaint and returning it for presentation to the proper Court of The point at issue is one of valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff's husband was adopted to one Ramaswami. 12 items of property are scheduled in the plaint, of which No. 1 is said to be in possession of the plaintiff, No. 2 was alienated by Ramaswami's widow and Nos. 3 to 10 had been alienated by the plaintiff herself. Item 11 is a vacant site and item 12 a channel. The cause of action is that the alienees from the plaintiff have been sued by the 1 defendant to recover the items alienated by plaintiff on the footing that there had been no such adoption and that 1 defendant has got a decree. Plaintiff was not a party to that suit but the alienees are now threatening to enforce against her indemnity clauses in their favour and therefore she has brought the present suit to remove this cloud on her title to alienate in order that her alienees may have a clear title.

(2.) The question at present for decision is, what is the proper value for the purposes of jurisdiction of this suit. The Subordinate Judge has held that it should be valued as if it were a suit for possession of the above 12 items, in which case the valuation for jurisdiction would be the same as for Court-fee purposes. For example, in the case of land he, has taken not the market value but five times the assessment, and on that footing the valuation comes below Rs. 3,000. The appellant contends first, that in such a case the Court is bound to accept the plaintiff's valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction, and secondly, that if this view is wrong the proper valuation is the market value of the 12 items.

(3.) We have heard a lengthy and able discussion on both sides on the principles of the Suits Valuation Act and Secs.12 and 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, which is the relevant statute law on the point. The Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887) is naturally the statute to be followed if there is any section directly ad hoc, but there is not. No rules have been framed by the Local Government under Section 3 of the Act, nor does the present Suit come under the categories mentioned in Sub-rule 1. it comes under Schedule II of Art. 17 of the Court Fees Act. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act does not apply, because this is not a case in which the Court-fee is payable ad valorem, and Section 9 does not apply. So we are driven back on Secs.12 and 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873). I think it is clear that Section 14 does not apply. The scope of that section may be gauged by a reference to Section 6 of the Suits Valuation Act. This section is to be wholly repealed if and when rules under Section 3 are promulgated. Section 3 relates only to particular categories of suits of which the present suit is not one. Obviously therefore the framing of rules under Section 3 and therefore the repeal of Section 14 of the Civil Courts Act will not affect a suit like the present, and It follows that Section 14 is not intended to apply and does not apply to such a suit. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court reported in Chalasami Ramiah V/s. Chalasami Ramos ami (1912) 13 IC 903. Hence the Lower Court is wrong in holding that Section 14 has any application. This is important, as will appear later on, since it implies that the subject-matter of the present suit is not land, house or garden.