JUDGMENT

1. In this second appeal, which was referred for decision to a Bench of two Judges by one of us, argument was addressed to us on ground of appeal No. 4 only. It is as follows:

2. That the lower Court has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in proceeding with the matter and deciding it without any inquiry into the facts of appellants' application that the entry of Rs. 4,000 as to valuation in the suit was mistake for Rs. 40,000.

3. It may be conceded at the outset that the contention is worded in a confused manner by a Counsel unacquainted with the facts of the case. The suit was tried by a Subordinate Judge with unlimited jurisdiction and the appeal was heard by the Second Additional District Judge of Lucknow. Before the District Judge there was no application relating to the valuation of the suit and the reference made in the grounds of appeal to the need of inquiry is unwarranted by facts.

4. The points at issue really are:

(1) Whether the valuation of the suit was such as to put the appeal beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Judge.

(2) Whether in that case the decision of the District Judge was without jurisdiction and so void.

5. It is unfortunate that care is not taken in framing grounds of appeal, such an important work being left to junior Counsel unsupervised by the seniors better versed in drafting. We shall, however, not take the course which may reasonably be taken by other Courts of disallowing argument which does not arise from the ground of appeal No. 4, only permitting ourselves to draw the attention of Counsel to the serious danger to litigants in the loose drafting of grounds of appeal consequent on a misunderstanding or want of understanding of the facts of the case. We shall make our disapproval felt when awarding costs.

6. The facts are these; the suit in the Trial Court was for a declaration that a Will executed by a last male Hindu owner was a forgery and that in consequence the defendant lady Mt. Phulbasa and the other defendant, her transferee, had an interest in the property in suit only for the lifetime of the widow and not absolute. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defendants the suit was dismissed and the Will was held to be genuine.

7. In the plaint the valuation given for the purposes of jurisdiction is written in raqam (writing) and not in figures and the raqam represents Rs. 4,000 and not Rs. 40,000. The case of the plaintiff-appellant here is that this was a slip for Rs. 40,000 and we know that such a mistake could easily be made. Judgment was delivered on 28th November, 1921, and when the plaintiffs, on obtaining a copy of the decree on 12th December, 1921, discovered that the suit was valued at Rs. 4,000 they applied through their Pleader on 16th December to the trial Court for a correction of the plaint and the decree at Unao. The trial Court was unable to enter into the question because an appeal had already been filed by the defendants in Lucknow on 13th December. For this reason the trial Court dismissed the application on 4th February, 1922. No written objection to the jurisdiction of the District Judge was taken in the lower Appellate Court and there is no affidavit on the record to prove that any oral objection was taken, or that the Judge's attention was drawn to the application of the plaintiffs of the 16th of December, 1921. The District Judge's judgment was delivered on 3rd July, 1923. There appears to have been a division in the camp of the plaintiffs; only one plaintiff, Sardar Singh, has gone over to the defendants and accepts the genuineness of the Will. Possibly this may have led to Sheoraj Singh submitting to the jurisdiction of the District Judge.

8. As regards actual valuation it is certain that the property in suit is of a larger value than Rs. 5,000. It is sufficient to mention that the revenue payable is Rs. 875, so its value must be at least Rs. 18,000 to take the lowest computation of 20 times the revenue. We hold it to co