AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 218 wordsThe 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.
No rules are framed by the Madras High Court u/s 9 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to suits referred to in Section 1, para, iv of the
Court Fees Act.
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 ILR 23 M. 490 and Gururajamma v. Tenkatakrishnarnma Ghetti ILR 34 M. 34.
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.
The costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause.