MURKOTHKANDIYIL MUYYARIKKANDI KALANDER Vs. THATTANTAVITA VATAKKAYIL MUYYANIKANDI KUNHIPAKKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this appeal is whether the lower Court was right in valuing the parambas which were the subject of the suit under Section 7, Clause (v)(b) of the Court-Fees Act and calculating the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction on the half share of the suit properties comprising parambas, building, garden, etc., claimed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The main question is whether jurisdiction should be determined by valuing the whole of the plaint schedule properties or only the half share which the plaintiffs claim as theirs.

(3.) Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act says: Where a suit relates to land or an interest in land...the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by rules under Section 3. It is clear from this section that for purposes of jurisdiction it is the plaintiffs interest in the property that must be valued. The plaintiffs suit was for partition of their half share in the suit properties. In other words, they asked that their undivided half share in the properties should be converted into a divided half share. This relief could not be valued; and court-fee had to be calculated according to the provisions of Art. 17 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. The matter in dispute in the suit was however whether the plaintiffs had a half share in the plaint schedule properties or not. According to their claim, they had an undivided half share in the suit properties, which they sought to have divided; and so it seems clear to us that the suit related only to a half share of the plaint schedule properties.