The valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction must be done in accordance with the specific provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

1. By reason of S.12 and 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 read with S.53 (1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, this appeal lies to the District Court and not to this court and will therefore be returned for presentation to the proper court.

2. S.53 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act makes special provision for the valuation of suits for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts and I have no doubt that the words, "value of the subject-matter of the suit" occurring in S.13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act and the words, "a suit as to whose value" occurring in S.53 (1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, connote the same thing so that the valuation of this suit for the purpose of jurisdiction under S.13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act has to be done in accordance with S.53 (1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, this being a case for which specific provision is not otherwise made under that latter Act [S. 53 (2) having no application since the court fee payable is not a fixed fee] or under any other law.

3. The value of this suit for purposes of court fee is only Rs. 7,912-50 as rightly shown in the memorandum of appeal as also in the plaint when it comes to a question of payment of court fee, and the valuation of Rs. 10,567-50 shown to make it appear that the value exceeds Rs. 10,000 is arrived at by adding the value of both of two alternative reliefs whereas only the higher should be taken into account under S.6 (2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It follows that by reason of S.53 (1) of that Act, this namely. Rs. 7,912-50 is its value for purposes of jurisdiction as well. That being so under S.12 and 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act this appeal lies to the District Court and not to this court.

4. Reference has been made to Aukhil Chunder Sen Roy v. Mohini Mohun Das (ILR. 5 Calcutta 489) and Bai Meherbai v. Maganchand (ILR. 29 Bombay 96) in an attempt to show that it is the market value of the property (which it is said is far in excess of Rs. 10,000) that governs the matter. It is also pointed out that, for the purposes of S.110 of the Civil Procedure Code, the value of the subject-matter of the suit is the market value. But those are all cases where there exists no special provision for valuation and in such cases I suppose, "value" must mean "market value". But here we have S.53 (1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act which lays down how this suit is to be valued for purposes of jurisdiction. When special provision exists for valuation for purposes of jurisdiction as in S.8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, valuation has to be according to that provision see Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (AIR. 1958 SC. 245) and it is because that section did not apply that it was held in Bai Meherbai v. Maganchand (ILR. 29 Bombay 96) that it was the market value that counted.