Decided on December 17,1952

A. Danapal Chetti Appellant
K. Rajagopal Chetti Respondents


Mack, J. - (1.) THIS batch of four appeals arise out of a judgment in four appeals, A. S. Nos. 85, 96, 100 and 145 of 1948 in which the learned District Judge of Chingleput on 9 -2 -49 remanded four suits, viz., O. S. Nos. 368, 302. 379 and 80 cf 1945 disposed of by the District Munsif of Trivellore in a common judgment for fresh disposal. He held in appeal that one of the suits O. S. No. 80 of 1945 was beyond the financial jurisdiction, of the District Munsif and directed the return of that plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Holding that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try O. S. Mo. 80 of 1945, he took the view that the common trial of the four suits was without jurisdiction, and that the logical consequence was to set aside the decrees and judgments even of the three suits tried by the District Munsif which he had admittedly full jurisdiction to decide. In an elaborate judgment, the learned District Judge took the view that Section 11, Suits Valuation Act would not apply to this case.
(2.) THE relevant facts necessary for a disposal of these appeals are these: One Kadirvelu Chetti executed five sale deeds in his lifetime in favour of three persons. After his death, his son Rajagopala Chetti executed a sale deed in favour of one Pattu Chetti of the property covered by these alienations ignoring the father's alienation as being sham and nominal. These four suits resulted. Overruling some objections raised, the learned District Munsif, as it appears to me, quite rightly tried the four suits on common evidence raising as they did the substantial issue as to whether the alienations of the father Kadirvelu Chetti were valid and for consideration or were sham and nominal. He found that the five sale deeds were true and real and decreed the four suits accordingly. There was no objection as regards jurisdiction taken before him as regards any suit. The point of jurisdiction arose in the appellate Court as regards one suit, O, S. No. 80 of 1945 in this way. This was a suit filed by Kadirvelu Chefti's son Rajagopala Chetti for the recovery of Rs. 1673 -8 -0 as mesne profits from the vendees from his father under two of the sale deeds, which he sought to ignore as sham, and nominal. An issue as regards court -fee was framed in the suit, but the plaintiff later paid court -fee of Rs, 15 on each declaration sought as regards each sale deed.
(3.) IN A. S. No. 145 of 1948 filed against this decision, court -fee appears to have been paid only on the mesne profits sought. The court -fee examiner took an objection that court -fee of Rs. 15 for each declaration should have been collected in the appeal also. This court -fee objection was heard by the learned District Judge who went much further than the court -fee examiner, and upheld a point taken by his own office in their explanation on the court -fee examiner's objection, that 'ad valorem' court -fee should be paid on the consideration appearing on both these sale deeds, i.e., Rs. 2000 and Rs. 300 respectively. That took the suit, of course, out of the jurisdiction of the District Munsif. After the learned Judge had given his finding the deficit court -fee was paid. When the appeals came up for hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellants made capital out of the jurisdiction position arising out of the learned District Judge's finding as regards court -fee in this one suit and advanced arguments which prevailed with the District Judge.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.