The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and the determination of the appropriate court-fee payable under the Court-Fees Act.

Somayya, J.

1. Two questions arise for discussion m this Revision Petition. One is as to proper court-fee payable on the plaint and the second is whether the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is above Rs. 3,000 in which case the suit cannot be entertained by the District Munsifs Court.

2. These two questions form the subject-matter of issues 8 and 9.

3. Issue 8 raises the question whether the suit is properly valued and whether proper court-fee is paid.

4. Issue 9 raises the question whether that Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. The District Munsif of Manamadura before whom the suit was filed, tried these two issues as preliminary issues and held that the suit was properly valued, that proper court-fee was not paid and that he had jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. The dispute between the parties is with regard to an Educational Institution known as Illupaiyur Nadar Kshatriya Vidya Sala situate in the village of Illupaiyur in Pallimadam Taluk of the Ramnad District.

7. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13 were elected on 25th January, 1936, as members of the School Committee, that at a meeting of the School Committee the first defendant was chosen as the manager of the institution, that the first defendant assumed management of the institution on 19th February, 1936, and that some time later he began to act in defiance of the Committee and did not discharge his duties properly. The plaint states that in order to consider the conduct of the first defendant, a meeting of the School Committee was held on 25th April, 1937, and that on the same day there was also a meeting of the General Body of all the persons in whom the ownership of the institution is said to vest and that due notices of the meeting of the Committee and of the General Body were given to the first defendant. By those notices the first defendant was informed that his conduct would be considered and the question whether he should be in further management of the institution would be decided. The plaint states that the first defendant did not attend the meeting of either body and that both the Committee and the General Body considered the charges against the first defendant and passed a resolution removing him from the office of the Committee member and manager and appointed the plaintiff in his place. The plaint states that after the resolutions of the Committee and of the General Body were duly communicated to the first defendant, the first defendant refused to hand over the management of the institution and was doing various acts likely to seriously endanger the institution.

8. In paragraph 18, the plaintiff asks that the first defendant should be declared to have been validly removed from the office of the membership of the Committee and of the managership of the institution, that the plaintiff may be declared to have been duly appointed as a member of the Committee and as the manager thereof and that as such he alone is entitled to be in management of the school. He asks for a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from functioning as the manager of the plaint institution. The plaint further asks that if need be the plaintiff should be put in possession of the office of the managership through process of Court.

9. As regards the prayers for declaration of plaintiffs right and consequential injunction, the suit was valued at Rs. 100 under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act and a court-fee of Rs. 11-3-0 was paid.

10. The alternative relief of possession of the office of managership is stated in paragraph 17 to be incapable of valuation and the plaintiff valued that relief at Rs. 20 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 2-3-0 thereon.

11. The lower Court accepted the contentions of the plaintiff that the suit was properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction. The first defendant now comes up in revision and urges that the plaintiff is not entitled to value the relief for possession of the office of managership