1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against an appellate decree of District Judge Maliara] Kishore dated 22-7-1948 increasing the amount found on the mortgage by the Subordinate Judge from Rs. 5767/15/3 by a sum of Rs. 3420.
2. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the present case but a few dates may be necessary in order to understand this case. Babu Bam mortgaged the property in suit to Loka Mal for Rs. 2000/- on 11-7-1907. The legal representative of Babu Ram sold his rights in the equity or redemption to the plaintiff who has brought a suit for redemption. The Subordinate Judge Ist Class decreed the suit on payment of Rs. 5767/15/3. Both sides appealed to the District Judge, the plaintiff for reduction of the amount of the mortgage money & the defendants for its increase, and the learned District Judge, as I have said, increased it by Rs. 3420/-.
3. In the appeals that were filed in the Court of the District Judge both parties valued them for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 3200/-. Therefore in accordance with that the appeals would lie to the District judge, but actually the amount on the payment of which the property could be redeemed was over Rs. 5000/-. In the appeal which wasfil-ed in this Court the jurisdictional value has been shown to be Rs. 9187/15/3 and the value for purposes of court-fee has been shown to be Rs 6687/15/3.
4. Now, the forum of appeal is governed not by the original jurisdictional value of the suit but by the amount which is found by the Court to be due, As long ago as 1926 in -- Jaswant Rani v. Moti Ram', A. I. R. 1926 Lah 376 (FB) (A) it was held that in the absence of any legislative enactment or statutory rule the valuation of a suit depends upon the value of the subject-matter which in a redemption suit is the amount which the mortgagor should, before recovering the mortgaged property, pay to the mortgagee, and this depends upon the adjudication by the Court and not on the valuation given by the plaintiff which can be regarded as only a tentative valuation and is subject to the decision of the Court.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents in the present case that now statutory rules have been made under the Suite Valuation Act. But those rules govern the value for the purposes of the suit. For the purposes of appeal the rule laid down in -- 'Jaswant Ram's case (A)' will still apply. In any case where the amount of the jurisdictional value in appeal is over Rs. 5000/- the appeal under the Punjab Courts Act lies to the High Court and not to the District Judge's Court. The same seems to be clear from the rule laid down in --'Ganga Ram v. Hakim Rai', A. I. R. 1934 Lah 545 (2) (FB) (B) where it was held that the District Judge when he comes to the conclusion that the amount which would be due on taking of the accounts would be more than Rs. 5000/- cannot pass a decree, and the rule laid down in -- 'Kalu Ram v. Hanwant Ram', AIR 1934 Lah 488 (FB) (C) was followed. In the present case as value of the appeal for purposes of jurisdiction was more than Rs. 5000/-, the appeal did not lie to the District Judge.
6. Even if the course of appeal was determined by the original value as contended for by the respondents, the amount of Rs. 3420/- could not be added by the District Judge because of the limitation placed by the rule in -- 'Ganga Ram's case (B).'
7. In my opinion therefore the decree passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction and must therefore be set aside. I would therefore allow this appeal, set aside the decree of 'he District Judge and restore that of the trial Court. In the circumstances of this case the parties will bear their own costs in this Court and in the District Judge's Court. The mortgage amount should be paid within six months.
8. Palshaw, J. : I agree.