Judgment :- Koshy, J. How valuation for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is calculated under Section 53 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), when a suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential injunction with regard to the immovable property where court fee is payable under Section 25(b) of the Act 7. That is the question to be decided in this case. At the out set, we may extract Section 25(b) and Section 53 of the Act for the purpose of proper understanding of the issue. "25. Suits for declaration, - In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 26- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher; (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx Section 53 of the Act reads as follows: "53. Suits not otherwise provided for. - (1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same. (2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value foro the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint". 2. In this case, the suit was filed before the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 27.3.1995 for a declaration and consequential injunction for which the valuation is shown in the plaint as Rs.20,000/- under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The suit was dismissed. Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 before it was amended by Act 6 of 1996 with effect from 27.3.1996 reads as follows: "13. The suit was dismissed. Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 before it was amended by Act 6 of 1996 with effect from 27.3.1996 reads as follows: "13. Appellate Jurisdiction of District Court and Subordinate Judge's Court.- (1) Appeals from the decree and order of a Munsiff's Court and where the amount, or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed (twenty five thousand rupees) from the original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judge's Court shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court: Provided xxxx xxxx xxxx" BY Act 6 of 1996 the words "25,000/- rupees" was substituted by "2 lakhs rupees". Since the amendment effected in 1996 has no retrospective effect and right of appeal is a substantive right, we have to consider the appeal provisions as was existing at the time of filing the suit. (See the decisions reported in Clara v. Augustine (1984 KLT 377) and Joshua v. Geevarghese Mar Dioscorus (1984 KLT S.N. 85 Case No.137). When this appeal was filed, the Registry raised the following objections: "The suit was filed for declaration and consequential injunction for which the valuation is shown as Rs.20,000/- under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In suits under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the valuation for the purpose of court fee is adopted as valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and hence appeal not maintainable before the High Court. (Kalu Parvathy and another v. G.Krishnan Nair 1969 KLJ 599), Sadasivan v. Chempakakutty Bharathy - 1980 KLT 616, and Sebastian v. Thressia - 1986 KLT 501). 3. In Kalu Parvathy and another v. G.Krishnan Nair (1969 KLJ 599), Sadasivan v. Chempakakutty Bharathy (1980 KLT 616) and Sebastian v. Thressia (1986 KLT 501), this court held that in suits under Section 25(b) of the Act, the valuation for the purpose of Court fee shall be adopted as valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. During the relevant time, if the valuation of the suit is below Rs.25,000/- appeal was maintainable only before the District Court and not before the High Court. During the relevant time, if the valuation of the suit is below Rs.25,000/- appeal was maintainable only before the District Court and not before the High Court. When the Registry raised the above objection, the appellant in this case, on the basis of the decision in Damodaran Unni v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 709) submitted that even though the court fee is calculated under Section 25(b) as Rs.20,000/-, value of the subject matter of the suit is Rs.40,000/-. One half of the market value of the property involved in the case was taken as value only for the purpose of calculating court fee only but jurisdictional value is Rs.40,000/- itself and hence the appeal is maintainable in the High Court itself. This dispute regarding the maintainability of appeal was placed before the court. The learned single Judge of this court was of the opinion that the decision reported in Damodaran Unni v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 709) differs from the decisions reported in 1969 KLJ 599, 1980 KLT 616 and 1986 KLT 501 (supra) and the matter shall be referred to a Full Bench of this Court. 4. In Damodran Unni v. State of Kerala 1982 KLT 709 what was held was that value of the subject matter of the suit cannot be altered in the appeal. In that case interest was added and appellant contended that the value of the subject matter as shown in the plaint was increased by the time appeal was filed and therefore, the appeal can be filed before the High Court. That contention was not accepted. It was held that the value shown in the plaint before the court of the first instance should be taken the purpose of jurisdictional value for filing the appeal. The above view is in no way in conflict with in the decision reported in Sebastian v. Thressia (1986 KLT 501) wherein it was clearly held that the value for the purpose of computing the fee payable is one half of the market value under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the same value should be taken for determining the jurisdiction also. In paragraph 9 it was held as follows:- "The value for the purpose of computing the fee payable is one half of the market value under S.25(b) of the Act. In paragraph 9 it was held as follows:- "The value for the purpose of computing the fee payable is one half of the market value under S.25(b) of the Act. By virtue sub-section (1) of S.53, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of court shall be the same viz., one-half of the market value of the property. That is Rs.6,000/-. Therefore the forum for preferring the appeal is the District Court and not the High Court". 5. We also note that the above matter was considered as early as in 1969. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (as he then was) in Kalu Parvathy and another v. G.Krishnan Nair (1969 KLJ 599) at paragraph 4 observed as follows: "Thus, for instance, Sections 23 and 28 of the Act specifically provide for jurisdictional value while Section 25 does not so provide. Therefore, a study of the various provisions of the Act leads to the conclusion that the value for purposes of court-fee must be first fixed and then the same amount adopted for purpose of jurisdiction also when the suit is one for a declaration and consequential relief falling under Section 25(b)". 6. Another contention raised by the appellants is that Section 53(1) of the Act is not applicable in this case. Admittedly, the suit was filed for declaration and consequential injunction. In 1980 KLT 616 and 1986 KLT 501 (supra) this point was elaborately considered and found that Section 53(1) of the Act is applicable in such cases. We also note that the decision reported in Kalu Parvathy and another v. G. Krishna Nair (1969 KLJ 599) has reiterated by a Division Bench of this court in 1986 KLT 501 (supra). There is no conflict or difference in the various decisions of this court, and the opinion of this court on this point is the same and consistent as can be seen from the decision reported from 1969 onwards. The reference is answered as follows: In a suit for declaration and consequential injunction with regard to immovable properties the value for the purpose of computing the court fee is one-half of the market value of the property involved in the suit in view of Section 25(b) of the Act and by virtue of Section 53(1) of the Act. The valuation for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court shall be the same. The valuation for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court shall be the same. In this case, the value for the purpose of computing the court fee under Section 25(b) of the Act is only Rs.20,000/ Hence value for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court under Section 53(1) of the Act is also the same and the court having jurisdiction for preferring the appeal in this case is the District Court and not the High Court. 7. In the above circumstances we agree with the objections noticed by the Registry and the Registry is directed to return the appeal memorandum for filing before the jurisdictional court. The appellants are allowed tow months time to present the appeal memorandum before the jurisdictional court from the date of return of the appeal. The Appeal is returned as it is not maintainable before this court for presenting before the appropriate court.