A VEDAJI BASKARA TIRUMAL RAO SAHIB REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, COURT OF WARDS Vs. SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL AND SESHA GURUKKAL MINOR, BY GUARDIAN MATHURAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first point taken by the petitioners in this civil revision petition is that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.

(2.) The point was taken in the lower Court but the Munsif rejected it, holding that for purposes of valuation the suit fell under Section 7, Clause 5(a), of the Court Fees Act. In Madras, in the absence of rules under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, which says the value for Court-fees and for jurisdiction is the same, is in force as, under Section 6 of the Suits Valuation Act, Section 14 gets repealed only on the rules under Section 3 taking effect. It is, therefore, necessary to decide under what part of Section 7, Clause 5, this suit falls. It seems to me quite clear that it really falls under Clause (d) and not under Clause (a), See Godavartny Sudaramma v. Godavarthy Mangammo 47 Ind. Cas. 543 : 34 M.L.J. 558 : 8 L.W. 88. It seems come to be, therefore, desirable that there should be a finding on one question what the market value of the suit property is, before disposing of this petition.

(3.) The other questions raised in the case, including the one raised by the respondents Counsel under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act will be held over for consideration after the finding is returned.