PILLA KAKKADU ALIAS BALAJI; PILLA RAMAYYA Vs. VEDULA CHENDRAYYA CHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs brought these suits for a declaration that the decrees in two other suits were not binding on them and for a permanent injunction restraining the decree holders from executing those decrees. The decrees were passed by a Subordinate Judge and the present suits were filed in the District Munsif s Court. The plaintiffs valued the relief claimed by them under Section 7, Sub-section 4, Clause (c), of the Court Fees Act and filed the suits, as stated, in the District Munsif s Court according to that valuation. It may be mentioned that they had originally filed the same suits in the Subordinate Judge s Court but on insufficiently stamped plaints, and afterwards withdrew the plaints. That does not, however, make any difference in the question we have to consider.

(2.) It has been decided by a Bench of this Court, after a very elaborate discussion of the law, in Arunachellam Chetty v. Sabapathy Chetty 41 Ind. Cas. 937 ; 41 M. 213 ; 6 L.W. 368 ; 33 M.L.J. 499 that a suit to obtain a declaration that a decree passed by a Court was obtained by fraud and was not binding on the plaintiff can be laid in a Court of inferior jurisdiction to the Court which passed the decree, provided the subject-matter is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is instituted. The decision seems to be supported by authorities and nothing has been urged against the soundness of that view.

(3.) The real question argued is that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction ought to be according to the amount of the decree and not at the option of the plaintiffs. This point, however, is covered by a recent Full Bench ruling of this Court in Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasamy Pillai 28 Ind. Cas. 79 ; (1915) M.W.N. 118 ; 38 M. 922 ; 28 M.L.J 118 ; 17 M.L.J. 154 where it is held that a suit for a declaration that a decree is not binding as having been obtained by fraud comes within Section 7, Sub-section 4, Clause (c), of the Court Fees Act and that the Court-fee payable thereon will be on the value at which the suit is valued in the plaint. That is a decision binding on us and it cannot make any difference in this respect that other High Courts, if the contention of the respondent is correct, have taken a different view.