S. RM. AR. S. SP. SATHAPPA CHETTIAR versus S. RM. AR. RM. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1024 · Decided: 28-11-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958} 
1957 
appointment after the integration, or the one of April 
Raji•i Amar Singh 23, 1951, no question of reduction in rank can arise 
v. 
and so Art. 311 is not attracted. 
All his previous 
The ~rahre of postings in the new State were purely transitional and 
RaJOS/an 
f 
I 
f h c 
temporary; and so ar as Art. XVI( ) o t e ovenant 
Bose J. 
is concerned, its guarantee has been fulfilled. 
1957 
The appeal is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
S. RM. AR. S. SP. SATHAPPA CHETTIAR 
v. 
S. RM. AR. RM. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR 
(BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR 
and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Court fee, Computation of-Suit for enforcement of 
share in joint family property-Plaintiff's valuation of the 
claim-Value for purposes of jurisdiction, if must he tite 
same-Court-Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1370), s. 7(IV) (b)-
Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (VII of 1887), s. 8. 
The computation of Court fees in suits falling under 
s. 7 (IV) of the Court-Fees Act depends upon the valuation 
which the plaintiff in his option puts on his claim and once 
he exercises his option and values his claim, such value 
must also be the value for purposes of jurisdiction under 
s. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The value for purposes 
of Court fee, therefore, determines the value for purposes 
of jurisdiction in such a suit and not vice versa. 
Where, therefore, the Court finds that the case falls 
under s. 7 (IV) (b) of the Court-Fees Act, and the pla\ntiff 
has omitted to specifically value his claim, liberty should 
ordinarily be given to him to amend his plaii!lt and set out 
the amount at which he wants to value his claim. The value 
put for purposes of jurisdiction which cannot be binding 
for purposes of Court fee, and must be altered accordingly. 
Karam Ilahi v. Muhammad Bashir, A.LR. (1949) Lah. 
116, referred to. 
Consequently, in the present case where the Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court was of the opinion that s. 
7 (IV) (b) of the Court-Fees Act appJ;ed but nevertheless 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1025 
held that the valuation given in the plaint for purposes of 
1957 
jurisdiction should be taken to be the valuation for purposes 8 R A 8 s 
of court fee and directed the appellant to pay court feessaiha~pa rCh;ttf'a~ 
both on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal on that 
v. 
basis, its order was set aside and the appellant allowed 
A R 
d l . 
S. Rm. r. m. 
to. pay court fees on the amount at which he value 
ns 
Ramanathan 
relief. 
Chmiar 
Held further, that 0. II, r. 1 of the High Court Fees 
Rules, 1933, framed by the Madras High Court clearly 
indicates, that s. 12 of the Court Fees Act applies to the 
Original Side of the Madras High Court and it was, there-
fore, open to the Division Bench in a reference to assume 
jurisdiction and pass appropriate orders thereunder. 
In the absence of any evidence on the record to show 
that he had either generally or specially been empowered 
by the Chief Justice in this behalf, the Chamber Judge 
sitting on the Original Side of the Madras High Court has 
no jurisdiction under s. 5 of the Court Fees Act to pass a 
final order thereunder. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
203 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the orders dated 
January 25, 1955, of the Madras High Court in C.M.P. 
No. 9335 of 1954 and S. R. No. 55247 of 1953. 
K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, R. Ganapathy Iyer 
and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and 
M. S. K. Sastri, for the respondent. 
Venkata.krishnan and T. M. Sen, for the intervener. 
1957. November 28. 
The following Judgment of 
the Court was·delivered by 
G 
. . 
. . 
Gaj .. 11dragadkarJ. 
AJENDRAGADKAR J.-Th1s IS a plaintiff's appeal by 
special leave against the order passed by a Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court on January 25, 1955, 
calling upon him to pay court fees on the valuation 
of Rs. 15,00,000 both on his plaint and on his memo-
randum of appeal and it raises some interesting ques-
tions of law under the provisions of the Court Fees 
Act (which will be described hereafter as the Act). 
The appellant had filed Civil Suit No. 311 of 1951 
on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In 
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
1957 
this suit he had claimed partition of the joint family 
s. Rm. Ar. s. Sp. properties and an account in respect of the joint 
Sathappa Chettiar family assets managed by the respondent. The appel-
s Rm •A R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.