DORAISWAMI REDDIAR Vs. THANGAVELU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a question relating to Court-fee as well as jurisdiction. The point in regard to Court-fee having been decided by the lower Court in favour of the plaintiffs, the reason for my interfering in revision is, that its decision is wrong on the question of jurisdiction: see the judgment in Kattiya Pillai V/s. Ramaswami Pillai A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 396.

(2.) The plaintiffs allege in their plaint that their father entered into a partnership with defendants 1 to 3 which was to remain in force till 1931, that, after their father's death in 1925, their mother agreed with the said defendants to release the plaintiffs rights in the partnership and executed a release deed, dated 10 April 1926. After plaintiff 1 attained majority in 1927, this suit was filed for obtaining a declaration that the release deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs. They allege that the deed was brought about by fraud and undue influence and that their rights are not affected by the release deed. The plaintiffs pray for a declaration that it is invalid and. for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their participation in the business of the partnership. The lower Court has held that the suit falls within Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act, which relates to a suit, to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed

(3.) If this section applied, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to value the relief at any amount fixed by them. In this case, they valued the relief at Us. 2,100 and filed the suit in the Court of the District Munsif.