A party who has adopted a particular value in regard to the subject-matter of a suit in the plaint or in the memorandum of appeal can be allowed to go behind such valuation and show the real value thereof, except where (1) there has been a judicial adjudication of the correctness of the original valuation in such a way as to attract the principle or the rule of res judicata or (2) where the party making the original valuation or the one adopting it had an option to give that value or the correct-value and while exercising the option by giving one of such values he gained for himself an advantage or made the opposite party suffer a detriment.

Ramachandra Iyer, J.

1. This reference arises out of petitions filed under Article 133 of the constitution for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decree and judgment of this court in A. S. Nos. 286 and 376 of 1955. The judgment of this Court affirmed that of the trial court. It has been found that the appeal involves the determination of a substantial question of law. All that remains to be ascertained is whether the subject-matter of dispute in the court of the first instance and still in dispute in the appeal was and continues to be not less than Rs. 20,000.

2. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was valued by respondents 1 and 2 who were the plaintiffs at Rs. 9650. They succeeded in the court of the first instance. When the petitioners, (defendants in the suit) filed appeals to this Court, they adopted that value, as indeed they were bound to do, for the purpose of payment of the necessary court-fee for the appeals. Petitioners now state that the aforesaid value, as estimated by respondents 1 and 2 and even as adopted by them, was erroneous, and that the real value of the Properties was and continued at all material times to be more than Rs. 20,000.

It is contended that the petitioners should not be allowed to go behind the value adopted by them in the appeals and show what the real value is. Different views have been expressed on the question whether the petitioners could be permitted to do so. In Venkatarayudu v. Venkanna, AIR 1927 Mad 862, Ramesam and Venkatasubba Rao JJ. held that a plaintiff who adopted a particular value in regard to the subject-matter of a suit in the plaint would not be absolutely precluded from showing the real value when a question arose in connection with has rights of appeal to the Privy Council. A different view was taken recently by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed and Subrahmanyam JJ. in S. C. P. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1958. In view of this conflict, the following question has been referred to the Full Bench for opinion :

"Whether for ascertaining the value of the subject-matter in dispute for the purpose of Article 133 of the Constitution and Section 10 C. P. C. in the court of the first instance or in the Proposed appeal it would be open to any party, be he the plaintiff or defendant, to go behind the valuation adopted in the plaint or in the memorandum of appeal as the case may be and show the real value thereof."

The question has primarily to he considered in the light of Article 133 of the Constitution and Section 110 C. P. C. Those provisions confer a right on a party to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court if it certifies that the case satisfies the conditions laid down therein. One of the conditions so laid down for cases coming under Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133 is that the value of the subject-matter in the suit and in the proposed appeal should not be less than Rs. 20,000.

Thus the right of appeal is a constitutional right in the cases specified; it cannot be prima facie impaired or affected by an erroneous statement as to the value of the subject-matter by a party, whether such statement is made deliberately or otherwise. The question whether in a particular case the value of the relevant subject-matter is such as entitles a party to appeal to the Supreme Court is one of fact to be decided by the Court when it arises. The determination of such a question will be governed by the ordinary procedure of the Court deciding, and rules of procedure and evidence like res judicata, probative value of admissions, estoppel, etc., would apply.

It is at that stage the question would arise whether a party who wishes to appeal to the Supreme Court could be allowed to plead and place a fact contrary to ins statement as to the value of the subject-matter at an earlier stage. In other words, the constitutional or statutory right of appeal cannot be curtailed by an erroneous statement as to valuation by the part