Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prem Chand Jain, J.
Sat Paul
Versus
Jai Bhan Ananta Saini
Second Appeal No. 17 of 1970,
Decided On : DECEMBER 22, 1971
COURT FEE - VALUATION OF SUIT - JURISDICTION - APPEAL - DEFECT OF JURISDICTION - PREJUDICE - COURT FEES ACT, 1870 - SECTION 7(IV)(C) - SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1887 - SECTION 11 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ORDER 7, RULE 11 - SECTION 99 - SECTION 149 - SECTION 151.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land, valuing the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at ten times the land revenue. The trial court found that the land was not kharaj-az-bach and that the court fee should have been paid on thirty times the land revenue. The plaintiff did not make up the deficiency in court fee and the plaint was rejected. The plaintiff appealed to the Senior Subordinate Judge, who held that the plaint was properly valued and remanded the case to the trial court. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge was not maintainable as it should have been filed before the District Judge. However, the court held that the defect of jurisdiction did not prejudicially affect the disposal of the appeal on its merits and that the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge was not a nullity. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to make up the deficiency in court fee on the appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge was maintainable. 2. Whether the defect of jurisdiction prejudicially affected the disposal of the appeal on its merits. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to make up the deficiency in court fee on the appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge was not maintainable as it should have been filed before the District Judge. However, the court held that the defect of jurisdiction did not prejudicially affect the disposal of the appeal on its merits and that the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge was not a nullity. The court relied on Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, which provides that an objection to the jurisdiction of a court based on over-valuation or under-valuation shall not be entertained by an appellate court unless the over-valuation or under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to make up the deficiency in court fee on the appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge. The court relied on Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 12(11) of the Court-fees Act, which allow an appellate court to allow the deficiency of the court-fee to be made good.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but no order was made as to costs.
1. Jai Bhan plaintiff filed a suit for possession of 2 Kanals and 11 Marlas of land in Killa No. 615 along with 1/18th Share of the well situated in Khewat No. 515 in exercise of his superior right of pre-emption as one of one of the vendors Ananta Saini. The sale was effected for an amount of Rupees 4000/- by the vendors by a registered Sale deed on December 21, 1966. The suit was contested by the vendees on various grounds. One of the plea with which we are concerned in this appeal was that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court upheld the plea of the defendant and found that the plaintiff should have paid an advalorem court-fee on Rs. 4,000/- the market value of the property in suit and that the value for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction could not be assessed at ten times and thirty times of the land revenue. AS the deficiency in the court fee was not made good within the time allowed by the trial court, the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Senior Sub-ordinate Judge, exercising enhanced appellate powers, Sangrur, and the learned Senior Subordinate Judge held that the plaint was properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and accordingly remanded the case to the trial court for decision in accordance with law. It is against the said judgment and order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge that the present second appeal has been filed by the vendees defendants.
2. Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the judgment and order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was liable to be set aside as he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that on the valuation determined by the trial Court. the appeal lay to the learned District Judge. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned Counsel while conceding that the appeal did not lie before the Senior Subordinate Judge, contended that the judgment and order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was not liable to be set aside merely on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, that at the best it would be a case where the plaintiff under-valued the appeal and filed the same in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge and in this situation before any relief could be granted in favour of the appellants, it was incumbent upon them to show that the under-valuation of the appeal had prejudicially affected the disposal of the appeal on merits. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
-
"11. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an objection that by reason of the over-valuation of a suit or appeal a Court of first instance or lower appellate Court which had no jurisdiction with respect tot he suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an appellate court unless:-
(a) the objection was taken in the court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in the lower appellate court in the memorandum of appeal to that court, or
(b) the appellate court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was over valued or under valued and that the over-valuation or under valuation there of has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits.
(2) If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in clause (a) of sub section (1), but the appellate court is not satisfied, as to both the matters mentioned in clause (b) of that sub-section and has before it the materials necessary for the determination of the other grounds of appeal to itself, it shall dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
