The 'subject-matter' for determining the valuation threshold for an appeal is the value of the specific property or interest in dispute between the parties, not the total amount of a mortgage debt affecting that property, particularly when the claimant is not liable for the debt.

Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 12, 1912) modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh.

The facts material to the decision appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1916. June 26. De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the respondent. There is a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal. Upon the findings of the Courts in India the only claim open to the appellant is to a two-biswas share in the property. The subject-matter of the appeal is that share. The High Court in granting a certificate erroneously treated the subject-matter as being the amount of the mortgage. The subject-matter was less than Rs. 10,000, and there was no right to appeal under s. 110 of the 1908 Code. It is conceded that there was a misjoinder of causes of action under the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, s. 85, but no objection on that ground was taken at the trial.

Law. Rep. 43 Ind. App. 187 ( 1915- 1916)

Radha Kunwar V. Reoti Singh 78

Under s. 578 of the 1882 Code and s. 99 of the 1908 Code the objection cannot be taken at any later stage.

Sir W. Garth, for the appellant. The effect of the decree was co add the share claimed by the appellant to the mortgaged property and to subject it to a charge for the whole amount of the mortgage debt. The subject-matter of the appeal was consequently the amount of the mortgage decree. The High Court has certified that the subject-matter of the appeal is over Rs. 10,000, and there is no evidence as to the value of the share in the property claimed by the appellant.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD BUCKMASTER L.C. It is always to be regretted when an appeal is disposed of on a preliminary point and the parties are compelled, after having incurred considerable expense, to leave this Board without a determination of the real merits of their dispute. Bat in this case their Lordships feel that they have no choice in the matter, and that they are bound to advise His Majesty that the preliminary point raised must prevail.

The facts of this case are these In 1884 a mortgage was executed of certain property for a sum of Rs.2000, with interest at 12 per cent. On November 30, 1909, the persons who were entitled to the benefit of that mortgage took proceedings in order to have it enforced. They claimed that the amount due upon the mortgage was Rs. 38,494, and they asked for an order for payment of that sum against the defendants and a sale of the property. They made as parties to that suit, not merely the people who claimed under the mortgagors, but also certain people who had set up adverse claims to the mortgaged property, among whom the appellant was one. Their Lordships think that this joinder of these parties was irregular, and that it could only tend to confusion.

What followed was this The present appellant, who claimed through a person named Hukum Singh, said that she was entitled to four biswas of the property. That dispute was entirely independent of the mortgage transaction of 1884. Whatever the amount of that mortgage might be, in no circumstances could the appellant have been made responsible for it. If it had been held that her claim was good the mortgagor would have completely failed, so far as her share of the estate was concerned ; if it had been held that her claim was bad she could have had no right whatever to redeem the mortgage. The cause, however, proceeded without any objection being taken, and on June 8, 1909, a decree was made by the Subordinate Judge, in which he declared that the appellant was entitled to one half of the four biswas which had been set up as her original claim. From that decree an appeal was taken to the High Court, and on November 14, 1910, the High Court decided that the appellant had no title at all. The result was that as to one half there were concurrent findings both of the Subordinate Judge and of the High Court that the appellant had no claim, and as to one half there were differing judgments. The appellant ac