All these three matters arise out of an order in appeal from the decision in O.S. No., 391 of 1942 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court Cuddalore, which was a suit for partition and possession of the share of the widow in the estate of one Khadirsa Maracair. The total value of the estate was approximately Rs. 41,000, in which the plaintiff’s share was just under Rs. 3,000. The plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 2,979-10-2, treating it as a suit for partition. The suit was decreed in part and an appeal was preferred to the District Court of South Arcot but was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The’ respondents took a preliminary objection that the suit filed as a suit for partition was, in substance, a suit for administration of the estate of the deceased Khadirsa Maracair and should have been valued on the total value of the estate Accepting this contention and relying on the decision of King, J., in Khadir Eusain Rowther v. Jamila Bibi1, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the only Court which could hear the appeal is the High Court. The memorandum of appeal was therefore returned for presentation to the proper Court Against this order, C.M.A. No. 209 of 1946 and, in the alternative, C.R.P. No. 336 of 1946 have been preferred. The connected C.M.P. No. 1585 of 1946 has been filed by way of abundant caution, praying that in case the High Court holds that the appeal lies to this Court, the delay may be excused and the memorandum of appeal may be received.

It is now conceded that no appeal lies against an order returning the memorandum of appeal and that the correctness of the lower appellate Court’s order can only be canvassed in the civil revision petition. Section 12 of the Madras Civil Courts Act provides that the jurisdiction of a District Munsif extends to “all like suits not otherwise exempted from his cognizance, of which the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed Rs. 3,000.” Section 13 of that Act provides that appeals from the decrees and orders of the Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court, except when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeds Rs. 5,000, in which case the appeal shall lie to the High Court. For the petitioner it is contended that the provisions of section 13 has to be read along with the provisions of section 12 of the Act and that section 13 does not contemplate an appeal to the High Court from a decree of the District Munsif’s Court even though on a proper valuation of the suit tried by the District Munsifs Court, the subject-matter thereof would exceed Rs. 3,000. On the other hand, the respondent contends that the combi-nation of the provisions regarding appeals from decrees of Subordinate Judges and appeals from decrees of District Munsifs into a single clause providing that such appeals shall lie to the District Court except when the value of the subject matter exceeds Rs. 5,000, in which case the appeals should lie to the High Court, clearly contemplates the contingency of a decree by the District Munsif in a suit, the subject-matter of which exceeds the proper jurisdiction of that Court and in such a case if the subject-matter is more than Rs. 5,000 under the plain provisions of section 13, the appeal must lie to the High Court.

In this connection, the provisions of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act are important. Sub-section 1 of that section provides that

“an objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under-valuation of suit or appeal, a Court of first instance or lower appellate Court which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto, shall not be entertained by an appellate Court, unless-

(a) the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in the lower appellate Cou