The value of the subject-matter of the suit, particularly in a partition suit, determines the appellate forum, not the value of the appellant's share. This principle is established through legal provisions and judicial interpretations.

1. Although this petition is only a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the real question it raises is the maintainability of the appeal in this Court. The appellant is the first defendant in a suit for partition brought by the first respondent in the Subordinate Judge's Court. In the plaint the first respondent valued the entire suit property at Rs. 24.810/- and her one-third share at Rs. 8270/-. By the original preliminary decree and its amendment the plaintiff and the second defendant were awarded 1/3 share each in the property. In the final decree which followed the total property was valued at Rs. 64,800/- and the plaintiff was allotted a share valued at Rs. 19.185/-, the first defendant a share valued at Rs 25,3931- and the second defendant a share valued at Rs. 20,222.80. The first defendant was directed to pay Rs. 2415.26 to the plaintiff and Rs. 1377.47 to the first defendant as owelty. The memorandum of appeal carries a court fee of Rs. 100/- as did the plaint in the court below and it states erroneously, but in an obvious attempt to justify the institution in this Court, that the "suit valuation is Rs. 22,790." It is not apparent what this amount represents, though we were told that the appeal was brought in this Court on the basis of the value of the share allotted to first defendant. The question is whether the appellant is justified in so doing.

2. The plaintiff paid a court fee of Rs. 100/- on the plaint under S.37 (2) (ii) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act ("Court Fees Act") on the allegation that the value of her share was less than Rs. 10,000/-, to wit Rs. 8270/-. In terms of S.53 (2) the jurisdiction was determined by the market value and the suit was brought in the Subordinate Judge's Court. This would have been the result whether the basis was the market value of the plaintiffs' share or of the entite suit property in view of S.11, Civil Courts Act. But in a suit for partition by a person in joint possession the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction is the market value of the plaintiff's share: Mallayya v. Jagannadhamma, (1941) 2 MLJ. 567, where following certain earlier cases it was held that as the plaintiff's share was not less than Rs. 10,000/- the suit should be instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court and not in the Munsiff's Court. The same view was taken in Venkataratnamma v. Narasimha Rao, (1944) 2 MLJ. 309, Kalander v Kunhipakki, (1947) 1 MLJ 112 and K. Natesa Ayyar v. Kothandarama Ayyar, (1951) 2 MLJ. 92, where (1941) 2 MLJ. 567 was followed. A learned judge of this Court held in Gopalan Nambiar v. Balakrishnan Nambiar,1972 KLT 1087, that in a suit for partition the relief sought by the plaintiff relates to his share of the properties, that the jurisdictional value should be the value of that share and that it was not possible to hold that the relief could not be estimated at a money value.

3. It is the plaintiff who seeks relief and pays court fee and determines the jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case the value of the plaintiff's share exceeded Rs. 5000/- and the suit was brought in the Subordinate Judge's Court but if the value had been less, the suit would have been laid in the Munsiff's Court in accordance with S.11(2) of the Civil Courts Act which so far as material provides that 'The jurisdiction of a Munsiff's Court extends to all like suits (the reference is to original suits mentioned in sub-section (1)) and proceedings of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed five thousand rupees". Neither the appellant nor the other defendant had any dispute about the plaintiff's valuation which was obviously accepted by the Court.

4. On the question of the appellate forum, it turns upon the provisions of S 13(1), Civil Courts Act The sub-section reads:

"(1) Appeals from the decrees and orders of a Munsiff's Court and where the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees from the orig