Skip to content


Mt. Sunder Vs. Kandhayia Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1946All456
AppellantMt. Sunder
RespondentKandhayia Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
- - in our judgment this objection is not well founded......against that order, it is urged that the learned judge did not apply the provisions of section 11, suits valuation act. in our judgment this objection is not well founded. section 11 of that act applies to cases where there has been an over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit. it does not apply to cases where a suit has been properly valued and the plaint is then presented in a court which on the face of it has no jurisdiction to deal with the suit. our attention has been drawn by the appellant to the cases in dalip singh v. kundan singh ('14) 1 a.i.r. 1914 all. 128 and wahidullah v. kanhaya lal ('03) 25 all. 174 (f.b.) but we do not think that these cases help the appellant. they are cases where there was in fact an under-valuation. they are not cases where the plaint was properly.....
Judgment:

Allsop, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. Mt. Sunder instituted a suit against her co-widow, Mt. Mitthani, in order to obtain a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the latter was not binding upon her. She valued the suit at Rs. 2000 and instituted it in the Court of a Munsif who had jurisdiction only up to that limit. An objection was taken by the defendants that the proper valuation was Rs. 4000 but that point was decided against them. However at a later stage Mt. Mitthani died and then Mt. Sunder amended her plaint and added a prayer for an injunction which she valued at Rs. 100. In the circumstances at that stage the valuation of the whole suit became Rs. 2100 on the face of it. The Munsif proceeded to decide the suit. An objection was taken in the lower appellate Court that he had no jurisdiction to do so. That objection was upheld and the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has passed an order of remand.

2. In appeal against that order, it is urged that the learned Judge did not apply the provisions of Section 11, Suits Valuation Act. In our judgment this objection is not well founded. Section 11 of that Act applies to cases where there has been an over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit. It does not apply to cases where a suit has been properly valued and the plaint is then presented in a Court which on the face of it has no jurisdiction to deal with the suit. Our attention has been drawn by the appellant to the cases in Dalip Singh v. Kundan Singh ('14) 1 A.I.R. 1914 All. 128 and Wahidullah v. Kanhaya Lal ('03) 25 All. 174 (F.B.) but we do not think that these cases help the appellant. They are cases where there was in fact an under-valuation. They are not cases where the plaint was properly valued and yet a Court assumed jurisdiction which it did not have on the face of the plaint. It is true that in these cases the learned Munsif found that the valuation of the property in suit was above the limit of his jurisdiction, but there is nothing to show that the plaint was amended so that it would appear on the face of it that he had no jurisdiction. We have examined the records in this Court in Dalip Singh v. Kundan Singh ('14) 1 A.I.R. 1914 All. 128 and we find that the decision of valuation in the Munsif's Court had nothing to do with jurisdiction. It was a case of pre-emption and the market value was one of the substantial issues in the case. However in both the cases which have been quoted to us there was on the face of it an under-valuation whereas in the case with which we are now dealing there was no question of under-valuation involved after the plaint had been amended and the relief for an injunction had been added. The facts of this case do not bring it within the ambit of Section 11, Suits Valuation Act. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //