The valuation of the suit as finally adopted in the plaint determines the forum of appeal, and the original valuation cannot be restored by way of amendment, even if the amended valuation was adopted in obedience to the orders of a court and its correctness is challenged in an appeal.

ORDER :- This appln. is filed u/s. 152 and O. 6 R. 17, Civil P. C. for amendment of the plaint and the memo, of appeal sought to be filed in this Ct. in the following circumstances. The petnr. brought a suit in the Ct. of the subordinate Judge, Ellore for partition of the joint family properties between him and the resps. herein and for separate possession of half the share to be allotted to him. The suit as originally filed was valued under Art. 17 B of Sch. II, Court Fees Act, and a fixed C. F. of Rs. 100 was paid on the basis of the pltf. being in joint possession of the suit properties along with the defts. The suit properties were valued at Rs. 11603 for the purpose of jurisdiction. On an objection taken as regards the C. F., the trial Ct. decided as a preliminary issue that the suit should not be regarded as one falling under Art. 17 B of Sch. 2 but should be valued u/s. 7 (5), Court Fees Act, on the ground that the allegations in the plaint did not disclose that the pltf. was in joint possession along with the defts. In that view of the matter the trial Ct. directed the pltf. to value the suit u/s. 7 (5) and pay the deficit C. F. on that basis. The matter was taken up by the pltf. to this Ct. in C. R. P. No. 1637 of 1948, and this Ct. by its order dated 26-11-1948 upheld the correctness of the finding of the trial Ct. When the matter went back to the trial Ct., the pltf. applied for amending the plaint valuation so as to reduce it to Rs. 4278 to bring it into conformity with the order of the trial Ct. and he was allowed to do so. The suit was thereafter heard and decided on the merits.

2. The pltf. being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Ct. has sought to file an appeal in this Ct. against it. On an objection taken by the office that the appeal does not lie to this Ct. but to the district Ct., the present petn. is filed to restore the original valuation by way of amendment. At the outset it must be mentioned that when Mr. Narasaraju, the learned counsel for the petnrs. was confronted with the difficulty of applying the provisions of either S. 152 or O. 6, R. 17, he conceded that the present petn. cannot be governed either by S. 152 or O. 6 R. 17. Obviously, the provisions of S. 152 cannot apply to this petn. because that section deals only with amendment of decrees, while O. 6 R. 17 deals with amendment of pleadings and can have no bearing on the question of amending the valuation now. He had therefore to fall back upon S. 151, Civil P. C. and invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Ct. to grant him leave to restore the original valuation.

3. The first contention raised by Mr. Narasaraju in support of this petn. is that though the valuation was revised in obedience to the order of the Ct. and C. F. paid on the basis of the revised valuation still it is the original valuation that determines the forum of appeal, and it is the market value of the property that should govern the jurisdictional value and that his client is prepared to pay the ad valorem C. F. on that footing both in the lower Ct. as well as in this Ct. I find it difficult to accept this contention. Under S. 14, Madras Civil Courts Act, in suits for recovery of immoveable property, the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is the same as that adopted for purposes of C. F. provided by S. 7, Court Fees Act. So it cannot be disputed that u/s. 14, Madras Civil Courts Act, we cannot adopt a valuation for purposes of jurisdiction different from that adopted for the purpose of C. F. In this context the following passage in the referring judgment in Kannayya Chetti v. Venkatanarasayya, (40 Mad 1), is apposite.

"The mistake lies in supposing that the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is its real or market value. It is the value fixed according to the mode prescribed by the statute, though in the absence of any statutory provisions in S. 14 of the Civil Courts Act or the Suits Valuation Act, the real or the market value of the subj