: Objections to jurisdiction based on over-valuation or under-valuation should not be entertained by an appellate court unless there has been a prejudice on the merits.

D. Biswas, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1995 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1992 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1992 passed by the Learned Sadar Munsiff No. 4, Silchar in Title Suit No. 16 of 1974.

2. The suit was filed for partition and recovery of possession by evicting the defendant-respondents herein. The learned Sadar Munsiff No. 4, Silchar decreed the suit for partition as the title of the appellants were already adjudged in earlier litigation and finally in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1969. As submitted by the learned counsel at the Bar, there is no dispute that the appellants (plaintiffs) have title over the suit land sought to be partitioned.

3. The learned First Appellate Court set aside the aforesaid judgment on the question of jurisdiction. The learned First Appellate Court held that the suit land has been undervalued and that the suit for partition was not maintainable since the plaintiff-appellants did not approach the Collector for partition at the first instance.

4. This Court while admitting the appeal observed that ground Nos. 1, 2 and 8 will be the substantial question of law. The aforesaid grounds are as follows :-

"(1) For that the learned Appellate Court committed an error on a substantial question of law in reversing the finding of trial Court and dismissing the Suit on Technical grounds without considering the effect of Sections 21, 99 of Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of Suit Valuation Act which resulted in failure of Justice.

(2) For that the learned Court of Appeal committed an error on a substantial question of law inasmuch as assuming that the Trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the learned trial Court tried the suit on merit and it should not be reversed or disturbed as the judgment is not effected by over valuation or Under Valuation and there is no failure of Justice.

(8) For that the learned Court of Appeal went wrong in reversing the finding of the learned trial Court that "When the Suit attracts Section 7(iv) of the Court fee Act, the valuation as put by the plaintiff is normally to be accepted" and this is also admitted by the defendants Advocate."

5. Ground No. 1 relates to the power of the Appellate Court or Revisional Court. Ground No. 2 relates to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and Ground No. 8 relates to the valuation of the suit.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for objection to jurisdiction. It says that no objection as to pecuniary limits of jurisdiction shall be allowed by the Appellate Court or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance.

7. Additional Issue No. 2 relates to the question of jurisdiction. Issue No. 4 relates to the question of valuation. The learned trial Court dealt with the questions of valuation vis-a-vis jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that the value of the suit land is not more than Rs. 10,000. The learned trial Court refused to act upon a certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 29.11.1985. Reversing this finding, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit for partition. The learned Appellate Court did not discuss any other issue except the issues relating to valuation and jurisdiction.

8. The learned First Appellate Court apparently omitted to discuss other important issues and thus violated the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned First Appellate Court also totally ignored that it was a partition suit and there was no dispute with regard to the title of the appellants (plaintiffs) over the suit land.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Ors., Appellants v. Chaman Paswan and Ors., Respondents AIR 1945 SC 340 (para 7) observed as follows :-

"7. Section 11 enacts that notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure an objection that a Court which had