Skip to content


Guman Singh Vs. Raghunath Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in63Ind.Cas.107
AppellantGuman Singh
RespondentRaghunath Singh
Excerpt:
appeal - jurisdiction--objection taken in appeal--appellate court, duty of. - - sub-section 2 deals with the case of an objection taken in the court of first instance (which it has in this case), but the appellate court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in clause (6) of sub-section 1--both the matters there referred to are when applied to the fasts of this case:.....the suit was undervalued,2. that under-valuation had prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit. the appellate court shall then dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defeat of jurisdiction in the first court. that provision establishes three things:1. that the first court may and probably ought in any event to go on to dispose of the remaining issues in the suit, otherwise it is difficult to see how the appellate court can say that the error in valuation has act prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit.2. the appellate court must decide for itself whether there was or was not an under-valuation.3. it must decide for itself whether the under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit.2. in the judgment before us the lower appellate court is wrong.....
Judgment:

1. The Court below has wholly misconceived its function in this case, and we really must ask Judge to be more painstaking and clear their minds as to their duty before they plunge into some order which they would not otherwise make. The position in this case is governed by the provisions of Section 11 of Act VII of 1837, the Suits Valuation Act, That provides for the case of a plea of under valuation and it lays down, where an objection is taken to the jurisdiction of a Court of first instance in appeal, what the Appellate Court is to do. Sub-section 2 deals with the case of an objection taken in the Court of first instance (which it has in this case), but the Appellate Court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in Clause (6) of sub-section 1--both the matters there referred to are when applied to the fasts of this case:

1. That the suit was undervalued,

2. That under-valuation had prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit. The Appellate Court shall then dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defeat of jurisdiction in the first Court. That provision establishes three things:

1. That the first Court may and probably ought in any event to go on to dispose of the remaining issues in the suit, otherwise it is difficult to see how the Appellate Court can say that the error in valuation has act prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit.

2. The Appellate Court must decide for itself whether there was or was not an under-valuation.

3. It must decide for itself whether the under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit.

2. In the judgment before us the lower Appellate Court is wrong in correcting the first Court and is further wrong regarding its own duty in the matter. The order must be set aside and remanded to the lower Appellate Court to hear the appeal on all the issues decided by the Munsif and having decided the question of the valuation, if it comes to the conclusion that the suit was under-valued, and is really in value beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, it must go on to decide whether such under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit and of the appeal on the merits, and if he agrees with the findings of the Munsif on the remaining issues whish the Munsif was quite right to decide, he must decide whether the disposal of the suit has been prejudicially affected. The appellant will pay the costs of the appeal.


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