This appeal is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge Sankari, in A.S. No. 16 of 1993 returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction for the trial Court.

2. The appellant therein filed the suit for declaration and possession against the respondent defendant before the district Munsif, Tiruchangodu. The suit was valued at Rs. 10,000/- for which the Court-fee was paid under Section 25A of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act. Though the defendant, in the written statement, contended that the suit has not been correctly valued and that the learned District Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, this was found against him, by the trial Court. The suit was decreed in toto and an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, though the learned Subordinate Judge, had agreed with the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and possession, he has found that the value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Tirucheng0du, and therefore the trial by the learned District Munsif was not proper. On that finding he returned the plaint f