Mangal Dass vs Naunihal Singh, etc.

Bal Raj Tuli, J.—One Naunihal Singh filed a suit for actual possession by partition of his share in a building-situate at Karnal. It was stated in the plaint that the building was evacuee property and had been purchased by Mangal Dass (Petitioner herein) for Rs. 40,000. The Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to 9931/40000th share in that building. The rest of the facts need not be stated as we are only concerned with the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. In para 8 of the plaint, the Plaintiff stated that the, value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 9,931 that is, the value of his share in the building. The High Court with the sanction of the State Government framed rules under the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the relevant rule is Rule 8 in Chapter 3-C of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I. According to this rule, the jurisdictional value of the suits for partition of property has to be determined on the value of the whole of the property in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. According to this rule, the value for purposes of jurisdiction had to be Rs. 40,000 which was clearly mentioned as the value of the property at the time of the filing of the suit in the plaint. Instead thereof, the Plaintiff stated that the value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 9,931, that is, the value of his share in the building. The Defendants did not object to that value being stated in the plaint nor did the trial Court detect the mistake. A preliminary decree was passed by consent and after the mode of partition was decided upon, a final decree was passed. Against that final decree, an appeal was filed in the Court, of the District Judge, Karnal, in the belief that the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was. Rs. 9,931. Before that Court it was stated that the Commissioner appointed by the trial Court had determined the value of the property as Rs. 80,000 and that constituted the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The learned lower appellate Court accepted that plea and ordered that the memorandum of appeal should be returned to the Appellant for presentation to the proper Court. Thereafter, the Petitioner presented that appeal in this Court which is'' pending. He also filed the present petition challenging the order of the learned lower appellate Court returning the memorandum of appeal for presentation to this Court.

In support of his plea, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the principle that the value of the suit as fixed by the Plaintiff and not challenged by the Defendant becomes conclusive for all the subsequent stages of the suit including appeals and therefore, the District Judge, on the valuation of the suit as stated in the plaint, had undoubtedly the jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal. The learned Counsel goes on to submit that he had no jurisdiction to return the memorandum of appeal for presentation to this Court. In fact, the counsel goes to the length of saying that he had no right to determine the jurisdictional value of the appeal before him. I regret my inability to agree to that submission of the learned Counsel. Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act which admittedly applies to the facts of this case reads as under:

11(1). Notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit or appeal a Court of first instance or lower Appellate Court which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an Appellate Court unless--

(a) the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in the lower Appellate Court in the memorandum of appeal to that Court, or

(b) the Appellate Court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was over-valued or under-valued, and that the overvaluation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits.

Provided that in a suit for accounts the value for purposes of jurisdiction as determined by the Court at any stage of the trial shall be final and , conclusive and shall not be liable, to be contested in appeal or revision.

(2) If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), but the Appellate Court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in Clause (b) of that sub-section and has before it the materials necessary for the determination of the other grounds of appeal to itself, it shall dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the Court of first instance or lower Appellate Court.

If the objection was taken in that manner and the Appellate Court is satisfied as to both those matters and has not those materials before it, it shall proceed to deal with the appear under the rules applicable to the Court with respect to the hearing of appeals; but if it remands the suit or appeal, or frames and refers issues for trial, or requires additional evidence to be taken, it shall direct its order to a Court competent to entertain the suit or appeal.

The provisions of this section with respect to an Appellate Court shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 622 of the CPC or other enactment for the time being in force.

This section shall come into force on the first day of July, 1887.

According to this section, the appellate Court can entertain an objection to the over-valuation and under-valuation of the suit or appeal if it finds that the over-valuation or under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits. In this case, the learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the value of the property was Rs. 80,000 according to the valuation put by the Commissioner and accepted by the trial Court and therefore, the appeal should have been filed in the High Court. In my opinion, that was not the proper way of looking at the matter. The proper way was to see what was the value of the property disclosed in the plaint at the time of the filing of the suit in accordance with Rule 8 framed by the High Court u/s 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, referred to above. According to that rule, the jurisdictional value had to be Rs. 40,000 and on that valuation the appeal lay to the High Court and not to the District Judge. The lower appellate Court, therefore, rightly returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the High Court because its decision by that Court would have been without jurisdiction and would certainly have caused prejudice to the parties because in that case second appeal would have laid to this Court which is of a very limited nature. If the value of the suit is to be deemed as Rs. 40,000 according to Rule 8 ibid, the first appeal lies to this Court and in that appeal the parties can ask the Court to go into questions of fact as well as of law whereas in second appeal only questions of law are to be gone into. The decision of the appeal by the District Judge would/therefore, have prejudiced the parties. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned lower appellate Court rightly refused to hear the appeal on merits and passed an order returning the memorandum of appeal to the Petitioner for presentation to the proper Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, . The ratio of that decision would have applied if the District Judge had decided the appeal on merits without noticing the defect in his jurisdiction, and an objection to his jurisdiction had been raised in the High Court in second appeal. That principle does not apply where the matter is brought to the notice of the appellate Court and the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that because of the over-valuation or undervaluation of the suit it has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Similar observations apply to the other judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, namely, In re Bhujan Sriramulu Chetty and Ors. AIR 1945 Mad. 194, Avisa Bi Bi v. Muhammad Sadakatulla Marcair and Ors. AIR 1947 Mad. 407 , AIR 1932 538 (Lahore) , Khudaijat-Ul-Kubra and Another Vs. Amina Khatun and Another, , Priya Nath Roy Vs. Sridhar Chandra Roy and Others, and Deonath Missir and Others Vs. Chandraman Missir and Others, . The Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Deonath Missir''s case (supra) held that "the matter of valuation cannot be reopened as a matter of right even in the" appellate Court but it can be done only under limitation provided for in Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act". I have said above that u/s 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, it was open to the appellate Court to examine the objection with regard to the valuation of the suit if it was not in accordance with the statutory rule which governed the suits. I may emphasise that the Plaintiff had to value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction on the valuation of the property and not of his own share and it was the duty of the Court to find out whether the proper rule had been complied with or not. The value of the property was available in the plaint itself and had not to be determined by the Court so that it cannot be said that the Defendants not having objected to the value for purposes of jurisdiction, the Court had no power to go into the matter. For these reasons, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.