Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.†-This is a petition by the defendants in O.S. No. 131 of 1954 on the file of the District Munsiff, Tenkasi, to revise the findings of the District Munsiff on issues 6 and 7 in the suit. Those issues run as follows:

Issue 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued and correct court-fee not paid ?

Issue 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for possession of his 1/6th share in the plaint 1 and 2 schedule lands including the trees and the well on them. The plaintiff’s mother and guardian had executed two sale-deeds in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Exhibit B-1 dated 8th January, 1938, was a registered sale-deed for Rs. 750 executed by the plaintiff’s mother, Pachaivadivammal, as natural guardian of the plaintiff, in favour of the 1st defendant and others. Exhibit B-2 was sale-deed executed on the same day, by the same lady as natural guardian of the plaintiff for Rs.750 in favour of the 2nd defendant. Within 3 years of his attaining majority, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of his 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties from the defendants, for mesne profits from the date of the plaint till the date of recovery of possession at Rs.580 per annum, and for costs. He alleged that his father died in 1937 leaving him behind as his only son, that he was aged 5 years at the time, that his mother Pachaivadivammal, was not well-acquainted with worldly affairs, that she did not know the price or value of the properties and that she was not even in the habit of going out of the house. Her brother, one Kandaswami pillai, and her father, one Namasivayam Pillai, were said to have taken advantage of the plaintiff’s minority and his mother’s ignorance of worldly affairs, and made the plaintiff’s mother execute the two sale-deeds in favour of the defendants for grossly inadequate prices though the properties were at least worth Rs. 3,000 at that time. Kandaswami and Namasivayam were said to have colluded with the defendants and caused two sale-deeds to be effected for Rs. 1,500 by deceiving the plaintiff’s mother and exercising undue influence over her. The first defendant is said to be a brother of the plaintiff’s maternal uncle, Kandaswami Pillai. The plaintiff alleged that, after attaining majority and ascertaining about the fraud played on his mother by her designing brother and father, he asked the defendants to deliver to him the plaint schedule properties. But the defendants did not do so. So, he filed the suit. He valued the suit for jurisdiction and courtfee at Rs. 1,037-3-0 under section 7(v)(b) of the Court-fees Act. The suit was first filed in the District Munsiff’s Court, Tirunelveli, as O.S. No. 341 of 1953. Then it was transferred to the District Munsiff’s Court, Tenkasi. It was after the transfer to that Court that issues 6 and 7 were framed. It was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit under section 7(iv-A) of the Courtfees Act, as he had to get rid of an insuperable obstacle to this prayer for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties, namely, the two sale-deeds to which he was eo nomine a party, and he could not avoid paying court-fee under section 7(iv-A) by simply not asking for the cancellation of the two sale-deeds. Exhibits B-1 and B-2, executed by his mother, by by-passing them, and by asking for mere possession of the properties, and by valuing the suit under section 7(v)(b). It was agreed by both the parties before the lower Court, and was also held by the lower Court that if the suit were to be valued under section 7(iv-A) of the Courtfees Act, it would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court, as the suit value would be over Rs. 3,000. That is also conceded here. So, the finding on issue 7 would automatically follow the finding on issue 6. The contention of the defendants in the lower Court that at least the market value of 1/6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document