K. Harilal, J.

i) Whether there is any inconsistency between Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala High Court Act and Sections 12 and 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, in the determination of Forum of appeals for decrees and orders from suits of Subordinate Judge’s Court and where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is below two lakhs Rupees?

ii) Whether the High Court has 1st appellate jurisdiction invariably against all decrees from all Subordinate Courts relating to the matters dealt with Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951?

These are general issues arise recurrently before this Court, and which we resolve through this Judgment.

1. This appeal is directed against decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.110/2007 on the filed of the Sub Court, Tirur. The Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that the suit temple known as ‘Kallarmangalam Vishnu temple’ is a private temple belonging to the plaintiff’s Mana by name ‘Kallarmangalam Mana’ and also for consequential injunction against the defendants. In the partition of thavazhi, the suit temple was set apart in favour of plaintiff’s Mana and ever since plaintiff’s Mana is the Ooralar of the suit temple. The suit temple is private temple and public has neither right nor any kind of possession over the suit temple. But at the instigation of an enimical neighbour, Sub Divisional Magistrate began to treat the suit temple as a public temple. This prompted the plaintiff to file a petition before the Government; but without proper enquiry, found that the suit temple is a public temple, against the true facts. In fact it was mainly on the basis of a list of temples published by the 2nd respondent including and treating ‘Kallarmangalam temple’ as a public temple. Actually there were more than one temple for the plaintiff’s Kallarmangalam Mana. But the list published by the 2nd respondent Commissioner does not say which temple of Kallarmangalam Mana is treated as public temple. Against the Government order, the plaintiff’s predecessor filed O.P.No.19236/1997 before this court. On the death of the plaintiff’s predecessor, the appellant herein was impleaded as additional petitioner. By judgment dated 2/2/2007, this court dismissed of the O.P. holding that the petitioner has to file a civil suit for getting a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple. Consequently, the present suit was filed by the appellant before the Sub Court, Tirur under Order VII Rule 1 and Section XXCI of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the Court below without understanding the legal principles involved and factual situation, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned decree and judgment, this appeal is filed on various grounds.

2. The learned counsel for respondents 1,2,4 and 5 herein raised a preliminary objection contending that this appeal is not maintainable before the High Court and it ought to have been filed before the District Court under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act 1957, since the appeal is filed against a decree which passed in a suit where the value of the subject matter is below 2 lakhs rupees.

3. We heard Shri K. Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned counsel for the respondents. Broadly, the point that arises for consideration is whether the appeal is maintainable before the High Court? Firstly, the counsel for the respondents pointed our that the decree appealed against was passed in a suit, where the value of the subject matter is Rs.1,01,000/-only. After the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court upto 2 lakh by the amendment to Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Court Act with effect from 27/3/1996, no appeal against a decree where value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed 2 lakh rupees, will lie before the High Court. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed before the District Court under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Civil Cour