Madras High Court
Chinnammal vs Mahomed Madarsa Ravuther on 14 September, 1903
Equivalent citations: (1904)14MLJ343
ORDER
1. The valuation for purposes of jurisdiction is also determined by the value fixed by plaintiff (See Section 8 of Act VII of 1887).
Where, therefore, a plaintiff sued for cancellation and delivery of a mortgage bond for Us. 4,000 but valued the relief at Rs. 50, such valuation cannot be revised by the Court and the suit is triable by a District Munsif s Court.
2. No rules are framed by the Madras High Court under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to suits referred to in Section 1, para, iv of the Court Fees Act.
3. Valuation of suits referred to in paragraph, iv of Section 7 of the Court Pees Act and for determining the jurisdiction of courts, but no such rules have been framed applicable to the cancellation and delivery up of an instrument in writing. Until such a rule is framed the valuation given in the plaint by the plaintiff cannot be revised. Sivaiyama v. Minammal I.L.R., 23 M. 490 and Gururajamma v. Tenkatakrishnarnma Ghetti I.L.R., 34 M. 34.
4. We, therefore, reverse the order of the District Judge dismissing the suit and returning the plaint and remand the case to him for hearing and disposal according to law.
5. The costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause.