Judgment

VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. : This appeal raises a question on the construction of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. The appellants instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr, for recovery of possession of 12 acres 51 cents of land situated in mauza Bardth of which defendants 12 and 13. forming the second party are the proprietors. The allegations in the plaint are that on 12-4-1943 the plaintiffs were admitted by the second party as occupancy tenants on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,950 as salami and put into possession of the lands, and that thereafter, the first party consisting of defendants 1 to 11 trespassed on them and carried away the crops. The suit was accordingly laid for ejecting defendants 1 to 11 and for mesne profits, past and future, and it was valued at Rs. 2, 950, made up of Rs. 1,950 being the value of the relief for possession and Rs. 1,000, being the part mesne profits claimed.

2. Defendants 1 to 11 contacted the suit. They pleaded that they had been in possession of the Lands as tenants on batal system, showing the produce with the landlord, from fasli 1336 and had acquired occupancy rights in the tenements, that the party had the right to settle them on the plaintiff, and that the latter acquired no rights under the settlement dated 12-4-1943. Defendants 12 and 13 remained ex parte .

3. The Subordinate Judge held, relying on certain receipts marked as Exhibits A to A-114 which were in the handwriting of the patwaris of the second party and which ranged over the period fasli fall 1256 to 1347, that defendants 1 to 11 had been in possession for over 12 years as convicting tenants and had acquired occupancy rights and that the settlement dated 12-4-1943 conferred no rights on the plaintiffs. He accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against this decision to the Court of the District Judge, Monghyr, who agreed with the trial Court that the receipts, Exhibits A to A- 114 were genuine and that defendants 1 to 11 had acquired occupancy rights and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

4. The plaintiffs took up the matter in second appeal to the High Court, Patna, S. A No. 1152 of 1946 and there, for the first time, an objection was taken by the Stamp Reporter to the valuation in the plaint and after enquiry, the Court determined that the correct valuation of the suit was Rs. 9,980. The plaintiffs paid the additional court-fees required of them, and then raised the contention that on the revised valuation, the appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge would be not to the District Court but to the High Court and that accordingly S. A. No 1152 of 1946 should be heared as a first appeal, ignoring the judgment of the District Court. The learned Judges held, following the decision of a Full Bench of that Court in --- Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narian Singh , AIR 1949 Pat 278 (A), that the appeal to the District Court was competent and that its decision could be reversed only if the appellants could establish prejudice on the merits and folding that on a consideration of the evidence no such prejudice had been shown, they dismissed the second appeal. The matter now cones before us on special leave.

5. It will be noticed that the proper court to try the present action would be the Subordinate Court, Monghyr, whether the valuation of the suit was Rs. 2,950 as given in the plaint, or Rs. 9,880 as determined in the forum to which the appeal from its judgment would lie, whether the one valuation on the other is to be accepted as the deciding factor. On the plaint valuation the appeal would be to the District Court; on the valuation as determined by the High Court, it is that court that would be competent to entertain the appeal. The contention of the appellants is that as on the valuation of the suit as ultimately determined, the District Court was not competent to entertain the appeal, the decree and judgment passed by that Court must be tre