Arathil Kandoth Madathil Janaki Amma vs Kinakkol Kuheema Umma and Others

Stone, J.—In this matter I am of the opinion that it is not possible to value the subject-matter of the suit as low as Rs. 3,000. The claim for

maintenance and arrears of maintenance account for Rs. 2,875-12-0 and there is in addition a claim to set aside an order dismissing a claim

petition. It is urged that the value of that remedy should be found by looking at Schedule II(17)(1) of the Court Fees Act, observing that a fee of

Rs. 15 is payable then looking at the table of ad valorem fees, observing that that is the appropriate ad valorem fee, for a claim of Rs. 190--200

and thus valuing that remedy for the Court Fees Act. Then to get the value for jurisdiction it is said one has to go to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation

Act. The fallacy lies in this that Section 8 relates to suits where ad valorem court-fees are payable and in cases falling under Schedule II(17)(1) the

fee is a fixed and not an ad valorem fee. That mode of determining value failing, one is driven to Section 12 of the Madras Civil Courts Act. The

test is value. What is the value of the subject-matter of a suit to set aside an order rejecting a claim petition? Surely the value of the subject-matter

of the claim petition end I so hold. Thus to the Rs. 2,785-12-0 has to be added the value of the claim petition.

It is not, however, contended here that I have no power to transfer this suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. Further,

Counsel for the petitioner admits the plaintiff has presented her claim to date in good faith in the District Munsifs Court and that Section 14 of the

Limitation Act operates to save her claim from being barred, I transfer the case accordingly. The petition succeeds with costs.