Judgment 1. This second appeal has been brought by the defendant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit when the trial Court dismissed the same. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff / respondent herein for declaration to declare that the charge dated 01.10.1990 against the document registered as 1282/1990 in Volume 314/1990, Book 1, Sub Registrar of Assurance, Karaikal has been discharged by waiver and for a consequential injunction to direct the defendant / appellant to execute and register with the Office of Sub Registrar of Karaikal a document of such nature to evidence that the above fictitious and unreal charge is fully discharged and with further direction to the defendant / appellant herein to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit. 3. Brief facts leading to the second appeal is as follows: (i) The plaintiff/respondent herein has purchased the suit property from the defendant by virtue of a sale deed dated 01.10.1990. At the time of executing the sale deed, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was retained as a charge to enable the plaintiff to get possession of the premises occupied by M/s. A.M.S. & Brothers and as per the conditions stipulated, the defendant has to evict M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from the suit property and obtain the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-was retained with a condition that the defendant has to evict M/s. A.M.S. & Brothers within a period of one year and thereafter, to get back the amount. The said condition was objected to by the defendant / appellant herein. As a result, the defendant refused to sign in the sale deed. (ii) After a compromise talk held between the plaintiff's representatives and the defendant, it was represented that the said recital was written on two stamp papers of the value of Rs.5,000/- each and if the recitals are scored, the said stamp papers of value of Rs.10,000/- will become waste and the plaintiff's husband also sentimentally felt that any score in the sale deed, at the first instance, may give rise to further delay. Therefore, after a compromise talk, the plaintiff asked for apology for their mistake and also agreed to execute a separate agreement agreeing to evict the portion by herself. Therefore, after a compromise talk, the plaintiff asked for apology for their mistake and also agreed to execute a separate agreement agreeing to evict the portion by herself. Accordingly, another agreement on the very same day, namely, 01.10.1990 was executed and the same was also handed over, agreeing to evict the tenant at her responsibility and also she agreed to pay any sum, if any, to the tenant while securing eviction and till such time, the tenant is vacated, the defendant was entitled to collect the rent from M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from October 1990 onwards. Therefore, as per the agreement, the plaintiff herself has to take steps to vacate the tenant, since Rs.2,00,000/- was already retained by her and till the tenants are vacated, it was agreed that the defendant would collect the rent from M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers and thereafter, the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid back to the defendant. (iii) Finally, the tenant M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers were vacated by the plaintiff/respondent herein on 22.09.1997. After recovery of the suit property, on successful eviction of M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from the suit property, the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- having become time barred because of the bar of limitation on 01.11.1994, the wrong entry made by the Sub Registrar, Karaikal, as if the balance of sale consideration in the encumbrance certificate continues, had to be deleted, in as much as the defendant / appellant herein had also refused to execute and register a receipt of discharge for the alleged debt for the reason that the defendant / appellant had lost his right to claim from the plaintiff / respondent, the alleged amount of Rs.2,00,000/-which he had himself deposited with the plaintiff at the expiry of 01.10.1990 and the entry should be declared as non est and the defendant / appellant should be compelled to take steps to delete the entry. On that basis, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare the charge dated 01.10.1990 made by the Sub Registrar of Karaikal, in Volume No.314 / 90, Book No.1, has been discharged by the waiver and for a consequential relief to direct the defendant / appellant to execute and register a document with the office of the Sub Registrar of Karaikal to evidence that the unreal charge is fully discharged. 4. 4. Opposing the said relief, the defendant / appellant has filed a detailed written statement admitting the fact that at the time of sale of suit building, M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers were occupying the same as a tenant, but the plaintiff at the time of executing the sale deed on her own, came forward to take steps to evict the tenant M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from the suit property and only after successfully evicting M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from the suit property, she undertook to repay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant and till such time, M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers/tenant vacates from the suit property, the plaintiff / respondent also further agreed with the defendant / appellant herein that the defendant would collect the monthly rent from the tenant and after evicting the tenant on 22.09.1997, the plaintiff / respondent, on her own cost, should come forward to return the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-without any interest at the hands of the defendant / appellant herein and as the plaintiff / respondent has not done so, she ought not to have filed a suit for declaration, to declare that the charge dated 01.10.1990 made by the Sub Registrar of Karaikal in Volume 314 / 90 in Book No.1, has been discharged with the consequential relief, to direct the defendant/appellant to execute and register with the office of the Sub Registrar of Karaikal, a document of such nature to evidence that the fictious and unreal charge is fully discharged. 5. It was also further contended that the defendant having not received the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff / respondent, under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, the seller has got a statutory charge, therefore, the defendant is entitled to receive the unpaid amount from the purchaser, along with interest on such amount. The limitation, as per article 62 of the Limitation Act, is 12 years from 11.06.1997, therefore, the prayer sought for by the plaintiff is not maintainable, nor the contention that the defendant / appellant lost his claim of the alleged deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff/respondent is legally sustainable. 6. The limitation, as per article 62 of the Limitation Act, is 12 years from 11.06.1997, therefore, the prayer sought for by the plaintiff is not maintainable, nor the contention that the defendant / appellant lost his claim of the alleged deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff/respondent is legally sustainable. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant that when the plaintiff herself has come forward to take all steps to evict the tenant, namely, M/s. A.M.S & Brothers and on only after the eviction of such tenant from the suit property, she agreed to repay the entire amount, the plaintiff on her own, should have repaid the amount and in any event, since the limitation to recover the unpaid amount of Rs.2,00,000/- namely the part of sale consideration is 12 years, the defendant is entitled to recover the suit amount till the expiry of 12 years under Article 62 of the Limitation Act. 7. With these background, the matter was taken up by the trial Court. The trial Court, accepting the case of the defendant / appellant herein that the suit was not filed before the competent civil court having pecuniary jurisdiction, dismissed the suit holding that the suit should have been filed before the District Court at Karaikal, for the reason that the subject matter of the suit was Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas, the trial Court, namely, Principal District Munsif Court at Karaikal at the relevant point of time was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and further, taking note of the valuation of the suit for Rs.400/- and for which only the plaintiff / respondent has paid the Court fee of Rs.30.50/- under Section 25 (d) of the Pondicherry Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, the trial Court held that the subject matter of the suit being Rs.2,00,000/-, the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit and accordingly, necessary court fee had to be paid as per the Pondicherry Court fee and Suit Valuation Act. But, in the instant case, as the plaintiff / respondent failed to value the suit property properly and correct court fee has not been properly paid. On that ground also, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. 8. But, in the instant case, as the plaintiff / respondent failed to value the suit property properly and correct court fee has not been properly paid. On that ground also, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff / respondent filed an Appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court of Pondicherry at Karaikal. The learned Appellate Court after framing issues 1 to 5, reversed the Judgment of the trial Court, without answering two important issues namely: (i) whether the learned trial Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction and (ii) whether the plaintiff / respondent herein has properly valued the suit for the purpose of paying the Court fee. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been brought before this Court under Section 100 of C.P.C. At the time of entertaining the second appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law. 1) Whether the lower appellate Court can grant any order or direction apart from what has been sought for by the respondent / plaintiff in the lower Court? 2) Whether the Respondent / Plaintiff can sustain a litigation for relief if she comes out with tainted hands? 3) Whether a charge can be removed without proving discharge in relation to the charge created as an encumbrance? 4) Whether any relief can be granted without payment of court fees, framing of issues and trial conducted over the issue on limitation whether cancellation of charge under appeal is governed under Article 132 or 53 of the Limitation Act to enable the appellant to enforce for the charge of unpaid money? 10. While addressing on the above substantial questions of law, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that admittedly this is a case where the District Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit since the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and consequential injunction to declare the charge of Rs.2,00,000/-on the immovable property as waived. Further, it was pleaded that no proper court fee was valued or paid and that apart, the learned Appellate Court without addressing these vital issues, erroneously reversed the judgment of the trial Court in violation of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., hence, he pleaded for setting aside the impugned judgment. Further, it was pleaded that no proper court fee was valued or paid and that apart, the learned Appellate Court without addressing these vital issues, erroneously reversed the judgment of the trial Court in violation of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., hence, he pleaded for setting aside the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the respondent repeated the contentions by reading from the impugned judgment. 11. Heard the parties on both sides. 12. At the very outset in this connection, it is worthwhile to find out what is the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court in Pondicherry, as per the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, 1966 that came into force from 21st October 1966. Sections 8 & 9 of the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act are given as under: "8.) Jurisdiction of District Judge or Subordinate Judge in original suits and of Munsifs – 1) The jurisdiction of the District Judge or a Subordinate Judge extends, subject to the rules of procedure contained in the law relating to procedure for the time being in force, to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature. (2) The jurisdiction of a Munsif extends to all like suits and proceedings not otherwise exempted from his cognizance, of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed five thousand rupees: Provided that the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, increase the jurisdiction to ten thousand rupees. 9.) Appeal from decrees of District Judge and appellate Jurisdiction of District Judge – (1) Regular or special appeals shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie from the decrees or orders of the Court of the District Judge to the High Court. (2) Appeals from the decrees and orders of Subordinate Judges and Munsifs shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the Court of the District Judge, except when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit exceeds rupees ten thousand in which case, the appeal shall lie to the High Court: Provided, however, that the pecuniary limit specified in this sub-section shall not apply in the case of appeals from decrees and orders passed under in accordance with the French law relating to Civil Procedure." 13. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court is below Rs.5000/-, the Pondicherry Government substituted Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3), enhancing the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Subordinate Court and District Court. The amendment act came into force by issuing Notification by the Government of Pondicherry Law Department on 15th July 2005 is given as under: "8. (1) The jurisdiction of the District Judge shall, subject to the rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to in this section as the said Code) for the time being in force, extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, of which the amount or value of the subject matter exceeds rupees five lakhs. (2) The jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge shall, subject to the rules of procedure contained in the said Code for the time being in force, extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, of which the amount or value of the subject matter exceeds rupees one lakhs but does not exceed rupees five rupees. (3) The jurisdiction of the District Munsif shall extend to all like suits and proceedings not otherwise exempted from his cognizance, of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed rupees one lakhs". 14. But, in the present case, the trial Court, by its Judgment and decree dated 19.04.2004, held that the plaintiff / respondent has filed a suit with the subject matter of Rs.2,00,000/- when it has no jurisdiction, but the suit has to be filed before the District Court, Karaikal and rightly dismissed the suit by giving a specific finding that the plaintiff / respondent had chosen to file the suit without having proper cause of action. At this juncture, it is also relevant to see Section 9 of C.P.C as it is extracted as under: "9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred – The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." A mere perusal of Section 9 as above heavily shows that every Court shall have jurisdiction to try all the suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. This goes to say that by virtue of Section 9, read with Section 8 (3) of Pondicherry Civil Court Amendment Act 2005, since the declaration has been sought for to declare the waiver of Rs.2,00,000/-, as rightly held by the learned trial Court, the suit ought to have been filed only before the Court having competent jurisdiction and not before the District Munsif Court. When the appeal was filed by the plaintiff / respondent herein, the learned first appellate Court miserably failed to address the vital legal question as to whether the first Appellate Court has got the jurisdiction to try the suit. Nowhere it is dealt with in Section 8(3) of Pondicherry Civil Court Amendment Act 2005, or any other provisions to empower the jurisdiction to try the suit. In this context, it is useful to refer a judgment of the Apex Court on the scope of first appeal provided under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Apex Court, while delineating the scope of first appeal and the power of the first Appellate Court, has held that the Court of first appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion only after adverting and appraising all the issues raised and decided by the trial Court. In the light of the above ruling, if I have a mere reading of the impugned judgment, it goes to show that the vital legal plea of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, with which, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court has not been addressed by the appellate Court. Such an approach is contrary to Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. Therefore, the first substantial question of law as to whether the lower appellate Court can grant any order or direction apart from what was prayed for by the plaintiff / respondent in the lower Court is answered in favour of the appellant. 15. In respect of the substantial questions of law 2 to 4, if Section 25 of Pondicherry Court Fee and Suit valuation Act, 1972 is closely read, since the subject matter of the suit is to declare a charge of Rs.2,00,000/-, the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit for Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, necessary Court fee should have been paid as per the Pondicherry Court Fee and Suit valuation Act under Section 25(d) of the Act. Whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought for is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher. Since the subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is Rs.2,00,000/-, the plaintiff/respondent misrepresenting the correct value of the suit, by falsely mentioning in the plaint that the suit is incapable of exact money valuation, notionally valuing the suit, wrongly paid Court Fee of Rs.30.50/-. When the declaration and injunction sought for in the suit is with reference to the tangible relief of discharge and waiver of Rs.2,00,000/-, the plaintiff / respondent having come to the Court with tainted hands, is not entitled to have any indulgence or equitable relief, therefore, the substantial questions of law 2 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff / respondent 16. Besides, it must be mentioned herein that the learned First Appellate Court should have given proper finding on all the issues tried and decided by the trial Court while reversing the same. When the first appellate Court has failed to answer all these important issues, namely on the jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif Court to try the suit and the proper valuation of the subject matter of the suit, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment of the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 17. A close reading of Section 8(3) of the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, 1966 shows that the District Munsif Court has got jurisdiction to try suit and proceedings of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed Rupees one lakh. The Pondicherry Civil Court Amendment Act, 2005 came into force on 15.07.2005, clearly shows that even as on 15.07.2005, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court to try the suit and proceedings of which the amount or value of the subject matter can not exceed Rs.1,00,000/- goes to show that the learned first appellate Court, without even looking into the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, in spite of a clear finding given by the trial Court stating that the District Munsif Court has no jurisdiction, has erroneously decreed the suit, without answering the jurisdiction of the trial Court. When Section 9 of CPC, gives power to all the Courts, viz, District Munsif Court, District Court and High Court, delineating the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of each Court, the learned first Appellate Court, even without considering the relevant provision, gravely erred in decreeing the suit without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court being perverse are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same are set aside. 18. As a result, the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent herein is dismissed as not legally maintainable. Resultantly, the second appeal is allowed with cost through out.