M. Narayan Singh vs Aiyasami Reddi and Others

We think the learned Judge is right. The 1st defendant obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant and attached the suit property as his. The

plaintiff put in a claim petition. He made the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder (2nd and 1st defendant) parties to that petition. His claim was

disallowed and he has brought this present suit under Order XXI, Rule 63. The value of the property in suit is Rs, 4,000, whereas the decree of

the 1st defendant is for Rs. 300. The question for determination is, what is the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The Court-fee under

Schedule II, Article 17, of the Court Fees Act, will be the same whatever be the value of the property. The District Judge held that the suit ought

to be instituted in his Court, as the value of the land in dispute exceeded the pecuniary limits of the District Munsif''s jurisdiction. The defendant

asks this Court to revise the order on the ground that the value of the suit is the value of the decree obtained by the 1st defendant against the 2nd

defendant.

u/s 4 of the Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to put a higher value on the suit than what is covered by his interest in the litigation.

The decision of the Judicial, Committee in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra 12 C.W.N. 169 : 35 I.A. 22: 17 M.L.J. 618 : 10 Bom. L.R. 1 is to

the same effect. Their Lordships say that the value of the action is its value to the plaintiff. If that criterion is applied, the suit ought to be valued with

reference to the relief sought by the plaintiff. In Fisher v. Arunachella Chettiar 2 Ind. Cas. 522, this Court came to the conclusion that for purposes

of jurisdiction the right put forward by the plaintiff fixes the value of the suit.

On the other hand, the decision of the Full Bench in Krishnasami Naidu v. Somasundaram Chettiar 30 M.k 335 lays down that in determining

jurisdiction the lowest value, whether it be that of the decree under execution or of the property under attachment, should be accepted as

determining the forum for the trial of the suit. We find no reference in this judgment to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Phul Kumari v.

Ghanshyam Misra 12 C.W.N. 169. Moreover, in the present case both to the claim proceedings and to the suit the judgment-debtor was a party.

The prayer in the suit is not only to cancel the attachment but also for a declaration that the judgment-debtor has no interest in the property. The

proper issue must relate to the conflicting title of the plaintiff and of the 2nd defendant, and the decision on it will be binding on both. Consequently,

the value to the plaintiff of this suit is his full interest in the land whose attachment he seeks to raise. The learned Judges who decided Krishnasami

Naidu v. Somasundaram Chettiar 17 M.L.J. 95 based their decision on the ground that the judgment-debtor will not be affected by the decision in

the suit. The present case is distinguishable from the Full Bench ruling, because the plaintiff here has distinctly asked for an adjudication against, the

2nd defendant. It is doubtful whether the Full Bench decision is good law having regard to the decision in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra 12

C.W.N. 169 : 35 I.A. 22 : 5 A.L.J. 10. However that may be, we feel no difficulty in holding in this case that the learned Judge is right in his view

that the value of the suit is the value of the entire property claimed by the plaintiff.

We dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal with costs.