JUDGMENT : The defendants in O.S.No.210/2011 on the files of Sub Court, Ottapalam impugns decree and judgment therein dated 21.01.2014 by filing this appeal under Section 96, read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Since the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeal is doubted, the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent were heard in detail. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact, the appellants filed this appeal as A.S.No.52/2014 before the District Court, Palakkad and as per the judgment dated 10.10.2014, the learned District Judge found that the District Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal memorandum was ordered to be returned to the appellants for presentation before this Court. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, since the District Judge found that the District Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the appellants' remedy is before this Court and therefore, the appeal is maintainable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Court. However, she pointed out the grievance of the respondent, who is a senior citizen litigating from 2011 onwards and sought for an early disposal of this appeal on merits in either way. 6. In this matter, as evident from the copy of the decree placed along with the appeal memorandum, the suit was originally valued at Rs.1,68,000/-. When the appellants filed A.S.No.52/2014 before the District Court, the valuation was shown as Rs.2,47,894/- by adding interest subsequently accrued after filing of the suit, in view of Explanation 3 to Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is on this premise, the learned District Judge, relying on the decision in Clara v. Augustine [ 1984 KLT 377 ], held that since the valuation in the appeal is Rs.2,47,894/-, the proper forum for filing the present appeal is this Court. 7. On a bare perusal of the verdict and the valuation shown in the decree, in fact, it is evident that the valuation for the purpose of appeal, in terms of Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 is only Rs.1,68,000/- and not above Rs.2 lakh. 7. On a bare perusal of the verdict and the valuation shown in the decree, in fact, it is evident that the valuation for the purpose of appeal, in terms of Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 is only Rs.1,68,000/- and not above Rs.2 lakh. Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, as amended by the Kerala Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1996, provides that appeals from the decrees and orders of a Munsiff's Court and where the amount, or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed two lakh 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. 8. Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act provides that the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject matter of the Appeal. However, Explanations 1, 2 and 3 also to be read along with Section 52 while computing the court fee payable in appeals. 9. Exactly, similar question has been considered by this Court in the decision reported in Ramanan v. Chitrasenan [ 2007 (2) KLT 11 ], wherein it was held in paragraph No.4 as under; 4. For the purpose of jurisdiction, valuation of the suit is relevant. The forum of Appeal is decided on the basis of the valuation of the suit. Valuation for the purpose of Jurisdiction and for the purpose of court fee need not be the same. That is the indication in Section 53 of the Court Fees Act. For computing the court-fee payable, interest accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of decree shall be added, unless the relinquishment as provided in Explanation (3) to Section 52 of the Court Fees Act is available. Costs would not form part of the subject matter of the appeal unless the ingredients of Explanation (2) to Section 52 of the Court Fees Act are attracted. Jurisdiction of the appellate Court is decided on the basis of Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act and not on the basis of Section 52 of the Court Fees Act. Interest accrued during the pendency of the suit is not a criterion for deciding the forum of appeal. Jurisdiction of the appellate Court is decided on the basis of Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act and not on the basis of Section 52 of the Court Fees Act. Interest accrued during the pendency of the suit is not a criterion for deciding the forum of appeal. Valuation of the suit is static and it decides the forum of appeal. If the valuation for the purpose of court fee is taken as the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in cases where specific provision is made in the Court Fees Act for valuation of a suit, anomalous situations may arise. For example, different suits filed on the same day for similar relief and with the same valuation need not be decided by the trial Court on the same date, month or year. If the forum of appeal is decided reckoning interest accrued till the date of the decree as well, appeal against one suit may lie to District Court and that against another may lie to the High Court. Such a situation is not contemplated under the Kerala Civil Courts Act. Even if the valuation for the purpose of Court fee is above Rs.Two lakhs, an appeal would lie before the District Court, if the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction as provided under Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act is below Rs.Two lakhs. In the present case, excluding costs, valuation is below Rs. 2 lakhs. There is no reason to include costs for the purpose of valuation. Since the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is below Rs.Two lakhs, on the basis of the valuation of the suit, though valuation for the purpose of court fee is shown as Rs. 2,01,100/-, the appeal is not maintainable in the High Court, as rightly noted by the Registry. 10. On perusal of the verdict of the learned District Judge, it is emphatically clear that the learned District Judge did not address the actual valuation of the subject matter of the suit before the trial court and the learned District Judge blindly applied the ratio in Clara's case (supra) taking into consideration the valuation shown in the appeal memorandum as Rs.2,47,894/-, which includes the subsequently accrued interest added to the total amount valued before the trial court, which is Rs.1,68,000/- while holding that the District Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. 11. 11. Even though the ratio in Clara's case (supra) was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court soon after its delivery, in the decision in Joshua v. Geevarghese Mar Dioscorus [1978-85 KUC 243], the Division Bench also concurred with the ratio in Clara's case (supra). The view taken by this Court in Clara's case (supra) is that the right of appeal is a substantive right and not a mere matter of procedure. The appellants would get a vested right of appeal on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, in view of the amendment to Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act which brought into force with effect from 06.01.1984, the right of appeal accrued on the date of filing of the suit would not be affected and in the matter of suits filed before the amendment came into force also the appellate forum is the forum competent to entertain the appeal on the date of filing of the suit. Clara's case (supra) was delivered relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Garikapathi v. Subbiah Chowdhary [ AIR 1957 SC 540 ]. 12. After the amendment of Section 13 with effect from 27.03.1996, when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court for the purpose of appeal was increased to Rs.2 lakh from Rs.25,000/-, also this Court considered the same issue in the decision reported in Kunnappadi Kalliani v. Lekharaj [1996 KHC 271] and affirmed the ratio in Clara's case (supra). Therefore, the legal position is not in dispute that the right of appeal is a substantive right and not a mere matter of procedure. The appellants would get a vested right of appeal on the date of filing of the suit and the right of appeal so accrued on the date of filing of the suit would not be affected and in the matter of suits filed before the amendment came into force also the appellate forum is the forum competent to entertain the appeal from the date of filing of the suit. To put it otherwise, when considering the valuation for the purpose of Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, the date of filing of the suit will decide the forum of appeal. To put it otherwise, when considering the valuation for the purpose of Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, the date of filing of the suit will decide the forum of appeal. After the amendment of Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act with effect from 06.05.2013, appeal pertaining to suits filed till 05.05.2013, unless the valuation is above Rs.2 lakh, appeal would lie to the District Court and in relation to suits filed on and after 06.05.2013, when the valuation is upto Rs.20 lakh also would lie before the District Court. In other cases, appeals would lie before this Court. 13. In this matter, the appellants filed A.S.No.52/2014 before the District Court, Palakkad and as per the judgment dated 10.10.2014, the learned District Judge found that the District Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal memorandum was ordered to be returned to the appellants for presentation before this Court. Later, the appeal was presented before this Court and this Court numbered the same without adverting to the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and correctness of the verdict of the District Judge and accordingly, this appeal has been pending before this Court for the last ten years. 14. In the case at hand, in fact, the valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of this appeal is Rs.1,68,000/-. Therefore, the District Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and contra view taken by the learned District Judge is absolutely erroneous. In view of the above discussion, in the interest of justice, the verdict of the learned District Judge is set aside holding that the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this appeal lies to the District Court and not to this Court. Since the appeal originally filed before the District Court, in deviation from the normal procedure of returning the appeal memorandum to the appellant to present the same before the District Court, Registry is directed to forward the appeal memorandum along with the connected records to the District Court, Palakkad, within a period of three weeks from today. 15. Since the appeal originally filed before the District Court, in deviation from the normal procedure of returning the appeal memorandum to the appellant to present the same before the District Court, Registry is directed to forward the appeal memorandum along with the connected records to the District Court, Palakkad, within a period of three weeks from today. 15. On receipt of the case records, the District Judge is directed to continue the appeal in its earlier number, viz., A.S.No.52/2014, hear and dispose of the same, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the case records from this Court and in order to facilitate the same, both parties are directed to appear before the District Court on 29.01.2025. 16. It is specifically ordered that the appellants need not pay any court fee in this matter as balance court fee already paid before this Court. Registry is directed to transmit the case records at the earliest, at any rate, within ten days from today.