Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff's suit to enforce payment of the amounts due to him as purchaser of the rights of a non-prized subscriber in a kuri conducted by Valiakulangara Bhagavathy Devaswom, represented by defendants 1 to 5 by enforcement of the security bond executed by the Devaswom, in favour of the entire body of the subscribers to the kuri has been dismissed by the learned Temporary Additional District Judge of Anjikaimal on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The question of limitation was dealt with as a preliminary point and the finding on that issue being adverse to the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. The suit was originally filed before the Crangannur District Munsiff's Court on 20th Dhanu 1124. In conformity with a line of decisions of the Cochin High Court other non-prized subscribers were also made parties to the suit giving them the freedom, if so advised, to put forward their claims, if any, against the joint security and the starters. Some of the non-prized subscribers entered appearance, filed written statements and paid court-fee on the respective amounts of their claim. It was then found that the total value of the claims to be adjudicated upon exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. The plaint was accordingly returned for presentation to the proper court by an order, dated 25th February, 1950 and on the very same date it was re-presented before the Anjikaimal District Court. It would appear that there was a former suit to enforce the same security bond and a decree was passed in that suit in favour of several subscribers. The plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest was not a party to that suit. Some of the subscribers who were parties to the former suit and had obtained decrees in their favour contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation. As stated earlier the learned judge dealt with the question preliminary and upheld the contention. 3. In the plaint it was stated that the period of limitation for the action expired on 13th Dhanu 1124, but that the plaint was being filed on 20th Dhanu 1124 as the court remained closed for Christmas holidays till 20th Dhanu 1124. The holidays had commenced before 13th Dhanu 1124. 3. In the plaint it was stated that the period of limitation for the action expired on 13th Dhanu 1124, but that the plaint was being filed on 20th Dhanu 1124 as the court remained closed for Christmas holidays till 20th Dhanu 1124. The holidays had commenced before 13th Dhanu 1124. In computing the period of limitation the lower court excluded the period of the pendency of the suit before the Crangannur Munsiff's Court. This was done under S.14 of the Limitation Act and contesting respondent before us did not dispute the correctness of the said view. 4. However according to the lower court and the contesting respondent, the institution of the suit in the Crangannur Court was not an institution in a proper court and therefore even though the period of limitation expired when the court remained closed and the suit was filed on the re-opening date, S.4 of the Limitation Act had no application to the case and the suit was hence barred. It is clear law that to entitle a litigant to the benefit of the provision in S.4 the institution of the proceeding should have been in a proper or competent court. Inasmuch as the sum-total of the claims due under the security bond sought to be enforced was bound to exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, the lower court took the view that the suit ought to have been instituted before the District Court and that by filing it before the Munsiff's Court the plaintiff became disentitled to the benefit of the provision in S.4. Mr. K. Rama Iyer appearing for the contesting respondent strenuously sought to support this view. 5. We feel afraid that on principle or on authority the view cannot be sustained. The Cochin High Court has, no doubt, in the decisions reported in Krishna Iyer v. Kitho Chori 9 CLR 217 and Rapheal v. Sowriar, 13 CLR 121, held that there can only be one suit for and on behalf of the non-prized subscribers to enforce a security bond executed by a Kuri starter either against the security or personally against the starter. Subsequent decisions have, however, made it clear that the plaintiff in such a suit need value the suit and pay court-fee only on the amount of his claim Suppayyan Chettiar v. Suppayyan Chettiar,18 CLR 483 and that the investigation of the claims of the defendant need only be made if they appear, put forward their claim and pay court-fee thereon Achutha Menon v. Rugmangadan, 23 CLR 509. These two decisions have been followed in Kunhu Amma v. Raman Menon, 35 CLR 151 where it has been pointed out that in a case where the plaintiff's claim fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff the suit was rightly laid in the Munsiff's Court. In that case, some of the non-prized subscribers who were impleaded as defendants filed written statements putting forward their claims and paid court-fee on their amounts. The sum-total of the claims exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff and the plaint was, therefore, returned for presentation to the District Court. The plaintiff, however, in collusion with the starters did not present the plaint to the District Court. The starter settled his claim. The defendants who had paid court-fee on their claims then moved the Munsiff to return their written statements to them to be presented before the District Court. The Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that there was no pending suit before him. In revision the High Court pointed out that those written statements were virtually plaints and when the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court the Munsiff should have adopted the same course with reference to those written statements as well. It was, however, found that when the plaintiff's claim was satisfied the sum-total of the balance fell within the limit of the Munsiff's jurisdiction and the Munsiff was therefore directed to treat those written statements as a consolidated plaint and to proceed with the trial of the suit. In the face of this decision it is in our opinion idle to contend that the institution of the suit before the Crangannur District Munsiff 's Court was not before a proper Court. 6. In the face of this decision it is in our opinion idle to contend that the institution of the suit before the Crangannur District Munsiff 's Court was not before a proper Court. 6. In Suppayan Chettiar v. Suppayan Chettiar, 18 CLR 483 referred to earlier it has been pointed out that while the suit should be one on behalf of all the subscribers to whom amounts are due and that the decree should be one for the sale of the mortgage properties for the entire amounts due to all the subscribers together, it was left to the subscribers impleaded as defendants to decide weather they wish to recover the amounts due to them or not and that therefore there was no obligation on the part of the plaintiff-subscriber to pay court-fee on the entire claim due under the kuri security bond. The learned judges (Varghese, C.J. and Krishna Menon, J.) pointed out that in such suits the proper course for the court to take would be to ask the defendants-subscribers to state whether they claim to recover any amounts and if so what and to direct them to pay court-fee on the same. It was further stated that if they fail to do so the investigation can be confined to the claims on which court-fee has been paid. Both Achutha Menon v. Rugmangadan, 23 CLR 509 and Kunhu Amma v. Raman Menon 35 CLR 151 followed the views expressed in Suppayan Chettiar v. Suppayan Chettiar 18 CLR 483. No doubt, in the latter the observations are made with reference to the levy of the court-fee, but we cannot accept Mr. Rama Iyer's contention that in such a suit the valuation for court-fee purposes and jurisdiction purposes would be different. The decision in Kunhu Amma v. Raman Menon, 35 CLR 151 is clear authority against the contention of Mr. Rama Iyer. 7. Our attention was also invited to the decision in Rama Iyer v. Sundareswara Iyer, 30 CLR 598 but we cannot find anything there to show that the plaint in that case did not show the total amount of the claim as exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff. In the case in hand the plaintiff only referred to the amount due to him and stated that if and when the defendants-subscribers claim any amount due to them and seek adjudication with respect thereto that may be done. In the case in hand the plaintiff only referred to the amount due to him and stated that if and when the defendants-subscribers claim any amount due to them and seek adjudication with respect thereto that may be done. There is no indication much less admission that more amounts than the plaintiff's claim, namely Rs. 309-9-6 remain to be yet realised under the security bond. In the circumstances we cannot uphold the lower court's decision of the preliminary issue relating to limitation. The institution of the suit before the Crangannur Munsiff 's Court was before a proper court and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to the benefit of the provision in S.4 of the Limitation Act. When the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the provisions both of S.4 and S.14 his suit cannot be held to be barred. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower court set aside and the suit is remitted back to that court for fresh trial and disposal in the light of this judgment. Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal will be refunded to the appellant. The remaining costs of the appeal will abide and follow the revised decision of the lower court. Order accordingly.