The jurisdiction of a court to try a suit is determined by the value of the suit at the time of the suit, and not by the value of the suit at a later date.

Judgment

MAHAJAN, J. : These two appeals were presented to the Judicial Committee of the State and are now before us under Art. 374 (4) of the Constitution.

2. On 30-1-1913 a suit was brought by the father of the present plaintiffs against the present appellants for a declaration of his title in respect of three survey numbers, 36, 38 and 54, which were assessed at Rs. 84/- land revenue. It was also prayed that a sale deed that had been executed in respect of this property by defendants 1 and 3 in favour of defendant 2 be cancelled. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim. They pleaded that the plaintiff was not a shikmedar in the land in suit and that he was not the owner of it under any sale deed and was not in possession of it. Issues 2 and 3 in this suit were in these terms :

"2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession as a shikmedar on half of the land in dispute and whether the other half was sold in his favour by the pattadar in the sum of Rs. 64/- and therefore he is in possession as an owner of the whole of the land in dispute.

3. Whether defendant 1 was competent to execute a sale deed of the land in favour of defendant 2."

The valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was not stated in the plaint but it was mentioned therein that the land revenue assessed on it was Rs. 84/- . The suit was tried by the Munsif who was competent to try suits up to the pecuniary limits of Rs. 1000/-. On issues 2 and 3 the Munsif found that the plaintiff s title both as a shikmedar and purchaser was not proved. It was further found that the defendants were owners of this land and were in possession of it. On appeal the decision of the Munsif was upheld. There was further appeal against this decree but it was dismissed in default. As no application for restoration of the appeal was made within the time prescribed, the order for dismissal became final. The result was that the plaintiff s claim for declaration and for cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed.

3. On 10-3-1930 the plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal arises. In this suit they claimed possession of the same survey numbers, 36, 38 and 54 on the same allegations which were made by their father in the earlier suit. This suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 1,040/-, the land revenue assessed on the land at the date of the suit being Rs. 104/-. The defendants pleaded that the suit was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in the former suit. This plea was resisted by the plaintiffs on the ground that the Munsif who tried the former suit was not competent to try the present suit because his pecuniary jurisdiction to hear cases was below the jurisdictional value of this suit. This plea for res judicata was negatived in the three Courts below on the ground that the Munsif who tried the former suit was not competent to try the present suit.

On the merits of the case the plaintiffs succeeded to the extent of one half of their title as shikmedars but their title on the foot of the sale deed was held not proved. This decision was maintained to appeal. On second appeal the High Court not only upheld their title as shikmedars but also held their title on the sale deed proved. In the result a decree in favour of the plaintiffs was passed in respect of the whole of the property. Against this decision these two appeals have been preferred on behalf of the defendants.

4. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case because we think that the defendants have made out their plea of the res judicata and the decisions of the Court below on this issue are erroneous. It is true that in order to make out a plea of res judicata it is necessary to prove that the Court that tried the former suit was competent to try the present suit. There can be no question about it but it is also settled that in order to determine whether a Court which decided the former suit had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit, regard must be had to the jurisdictio