District Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

The first respondent herein filed O.S. No.244 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Madurai Taluk for decree and judgment that any encumbrance done by the first defendant with the second defendant or his men to sell away the properties in any manner, including half share of the property of the plaintiff, is null and void and consequently restraining the defendants by way of permanent injunction from in any way alienating or selling away the properties to third parties.

2. A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiff has adopted a camouflage and instead of directly praying for a declaration of her half share in the properties or directly asserting that she has got one half share in the suit property and preventing the defendants from alienating the properties, has prayed for a declaration that the alienation affected by the defendants is null and void, which is only on the basis that the plaintiff is entitled to one half share in the properties. It is not necessary for me to go into the basis of the claim made by the plaintiff to a half share in the properties.

3. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.508 of 1995 for interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner herein has contested the application and in the counter-affidavit, raised the contention that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the plaintiff had improperly secured the ex parte ad interim injunction. The petitioner has stated that the value of the suit properties was such that the court of the District Munsif would have no jurisdiction to deal with the claim. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has ultimately pointed out that if the particulars mentioned therein had been brought to the notice of the court, the court would have found out that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In paragraph 10, it is stated that the fact that the court had no jurisdiction would be evident from the notice of the plaintiff herself dated 18. 1995 wherein, she admitted the alleged sale of suit item No.1 and that the sale proceeds amounted approximately to Rs.8 lakhs. Again in the same paragraph, it is stated that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction must be far beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the District Munsif and the valuation of the suit purporting to be under Secs.25(3) and 27(c) are wholly untenable.

4. The learned District Munsif has, on a reasoning, which is unintelligible to me, held that the interest of the plaintiff would be prejudiced unless an order of injunction was granted in her favour and consequently passed an order as prayed for by the plaintiff. The learned Judge has omitted to decide the question whether the court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

5. The plaint has been valued under Secs. 25(d) and 27 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Under Sec. 25(d) if the matter does not fall under clauses (a), (b) and (c), whether the subject matter of suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher. Under Sec. 27(c), in a suit for injunction, whether the subject matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher. Both Secs.25(d) and 27(c) would apply only if Secs.25(a) to 25(c) on the one hand and Secs.27(a) and 27(b) on the other are not applicable. In this case, several properties set out in the plaint are immovable properties. Relief is sought with reference to such properties also. According to the plaintiff, she is entitled to one half share in the said properties and the defendants have unlawfully alienated here half share also denying thereby her title. That is why the plaintiff has sought for a declaration that the alienation effected by the defen