Dhaturi Singh vs Kedar Nath Goenka and Others

The appellant in this case is in the unfortunate position of having had his memorandum of appeal rejected by the learned District Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and when he presented his memorandum of appeal in the High Court the learned Registrar decided that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal but that the proper Court was the District Court and the matter has been referred to this Bench for final orders. The case stands thus.

The plaintiffs brought a suit against the appellant claiming arrears of rent which were valued at Rs. 3,593-10-9. In the same suit they claimed an enhancement of rent and under the Court Fees Act the valuation of such a claim is based upon the amount of one year''s rent, in this case Rs. 718-11-9. The total amount claimed, therefore, was Rs. 4,312-6-6 which amount we are informed was actually stated in the plaint for the purpose of estimating the Court-fee. In the same document, however, the value of the suit was stated to be Rs. 5,100 for the purposes of jurisdiction. It is quite clear that the plaintiffs in the suit were wrong in giving one valuation for the purpose of Court fees and another valuation which appears to be a purely arbitrary valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. It is provided in Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act that valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and Court Fee shall, be the same. The learned District Judge when the matter went before him merely referred to the fact that the suit had been valued for the purposes of jurisdiction ad Rs. 5,100 and if that were right it was clear that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal but that the High Court was the proper tribunal.

When the matter came before this Court, and the appellant who was the defendant had no option in the matter, the Registrar pointed out that the proper valuation both for the purposes of jurisdiction and for the purposes of Court-fee was the lower valuation, namely Rs. 4,312-6-6 and that in these circumstances the proper Court was the Court of the District Judge and not this Court. The matter has been referred to us and we think that the learned Registrar was right in the conclusion at which he arrived. A party is not entitled; where the valuation of the suit can be; correctly ascertained as in this case, to put a purely fancy value on the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. Where the value can be ascertained as in this case he cannot enhance the value merely for the purpose of jurisdiction.

The result is that we must return this memorandum of appeal for presentation in the proper Court which is the Court of the District Judge and at the same time we must set aside the order of the District Judge-dated the 21st January 1927, refusing to try the case on the ground that he had no jurisdiction.