K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) WHEN the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the appeal will have to be transferred to the court of the district judge, mandya, having regard to the value of the subject-matter, which according to him, is below Rs. One lakh. Mr. chandrashekaraiah, learned counsel for the appellant contended that this was a partition suit and the subject-matter of the suit will be the entire joint family property from which the plaintiff-appellant seeks partition.

( 2 ) THERE can be no doubt that the value of the subject-matter for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction may be different from the value of the subject-matter for the purpose of court-fee, having regard to the Provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. In the case of a partition suit, the court-fee payable is fixed under Section 35 (2), when the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession of the property. But this fixed court-fee also in turn depends upon the value of the plaintiffs share. Necessarily the value of the share of the plaintiff will be the market value.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 50, normally the value of the subject-matter is determined for the purpose of jurisdiction with reference to the valuation shown for the purpose of court-fee, unless there is some specific provision governing the valuation for determining the court's jurisdiction. Mr. Chandrashekaraiah contends that when the plaintiff seeks partition, he seeks a right in every piece and parcel of the joint family property and therefore, the entire joint family property is the subject-matter of the litigation and consequently for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the entire joint family property will have to be considered and not the value of the plaintiff's share. For this proposition learned counsel cited a decision of the Orissa High Court reported in Babaji Charan Sahu v Netrananda Saint and others, AIR 1979 Orissa 71. It was held therein that"in a simple suit for partition, the value of the entire property to be partitioned determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. "a distinction is made in the said decision between a simple suit for partition and the suit for partition in which the right of the plaintiff to a particular share or any share at all is involved. In a case of simple partition, it is held that the value of the subject-matter will be the value of the entire property of the joint family. However, in the case of a suit for partition where the plaintiff's right to share is in question subject-matter of the suit will be only the value of the plaintiff's share.

( 4 ) THE Orissa High Court in fact has relied upon its earlier decision for the said proposition.

( 5 ) WE are concerned here with the Karnataka court-fee and suits valuation Act,1958. There is a specific provision governing the valuation of the suit as per Section 50. Section 50 itself indicates that the value for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court will be normally the value for the purpose of computing the court-fee, unless there is some other act or legal provision governing the determination of the jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 only amplifies this provision by pointing out that when a fixed court-fee is payable for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, the actual market value shall be taken as the value determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. As already noted Section 35 provides for a gxed court-fee which in turn depends on the value of the plaintiff's share which will be the value to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

( 6 ) THIS is in consonance with the general principle governing the suits. In Murkotlik and Iyil Muyyarikkandi Kalander and others v Thattantavita Vatakkayil Muyyanikandi Kunhipakki, AIR 1947 (34) Madras 273 a bench of the Madras High Court pointed out that for the purpose of jurisdict

Click Here to Read the rest of this document