Judgement

Appeal by special leave from a final order of the High Court (June 26, 1912) setting aside, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, a decree of the District Judge of Belgaum (November 4, 1910) ; and from a decree of the High Court (December 10, 1913) affirming, on the merits, a decree of the first class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum (March 23, 1910).

The question for determination upon the appeal was whether, in the circumstances stated in the judgment of their Lordships, an appeal from a decree made by the first class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum lay to the District Court or to the High Court.

65 Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 24 ( 1918- 1919) Rachappa Subrao Jadhav V. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav

166

1918. Oct. 25, 28. P.O. Lawrence, K.C., De Gruyther, K.C. , and O’Gorman for the appellant (defendant). The appeal lay to the District Judge, who decided in the appellants favour, and not to the High Court. Under ss. 8, 26 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act (XIV. of 1869) an appeal from a first-class Subordinate Judge lies to the District Court where the value of the subject-matter does not exceed Us. 5,000. By the Suits Valuation Act (VII. of 1887), s. 8, the valuation for Court fees and for jurisdiction is the same ; that rule applies to appellate jurisdiction Kannaya Chetti v. Venkata Narasayya (( 1916) I. L. R. 40 M. 1.), Sunderbai v. Collector of Belgaum. (( 1918) L. R. 46 I. A. 15.) The injunction prayed for was consequential relief upon the declaration consequently s. 7, par. iv. (c) of the Court Fees Act (VII. of 1870) applied Gulabsingji v. Lakshmansingji. (( 1893) I. L, R. 18 B. 100.) Under that provision it was for the plaintiff to fix the value of the declaration Order VII. 21 (i.). He did so at Rs. 130, and he fixed the value of the injunction at Rs. 5. If those valuations were wrong it was for the Court to correct them under s. 12 of the Court Fees Act. He paid the fees demanded. It is not material whether the amount was correct according to the schedule I. of the Act; the question is what was the valuation which the plaintiff put upon the suit. The value for court fees and for jurisdiction was therefore Rs. 135 only. The High Court in regarding the suit as one which embraced two or more distinct subjects, and to which therefore s, 17 applied, wrongly construed the plaint.

E. B. Raikes for the respondent. The property was not situated within the local jurisdiction of the first class Sub ordinate Judge ; it could therefore only be heard by him if the value of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 5,000 Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, ss. 24, 25 ; Code of Civil Procedure, 1008, ss. 15, 16. The appellant did not dispute the jurisdiction of the trial judge, and he therefore could not upon appeal contend that the value did not exceed Rs. 5,000. By s. 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, the appellant cannot now object on the ground of valuation that the trial judge had not jurisdiction. If the trial judge had jurisdiction the appeal lay to the High Court necessarily under s. 26 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869. The suit was treated in the Court of) first instance as one to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief was sought. In that case sched. II., par. 17 (iii.) of the Court Fees Act provides a fixed fee of Rs. 10. The amount of fees paid—namely, Rs. 10 6—is consistent only with that view, the 6 annas being the ad valorem fee payable on the Rs. 5 value placed upon the injunction. The aggregate amount was charged under s. 17 Muh Chand v. Shib Charan Lai. (( 1880) I. L. R. 2 A. 676.) On that basis the value of Rs. 130 placed upon the declaration was immaterial, and the value of the subject-matter was Rs. 69,000, which the plaint stated to be the value of the property. If strictly the injunction was consequential relief and s. 7, par. iv. (c) applied, the appellant should have objected. Had he done so the claim to the injunction, which was unnecessary, could have been dropped. Under s. 11 of the Suits Valuation Act