JAGANNATH GANPATRAM AGARWAL Vs. JAMNALAL SIDHHESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question before us at this stage is a preliminary one whether this appeal could have been filed in this Court, because the amount in dispute after the preparation of the final decree is more than Rs. 5,000, and not before the District Judge, because the valuation of the suit (which was provisional) was less than Rs. 5,000, being actually Rs. 100. The respondent's contention is the latter; if it is accepted the memorandum of appeal will have to be returned for being presented in the Court of the District Judge. That Court will, in time decide, whether this is a fit case for condoning delay under section 14, Limitation Act; that question does not arise here at present. The problem is this; one of the members of a firm sues his partner (or partners) for dissolution and accounts. Unable to form any estimate of the money that might be found payable to him after taking accounts, he puts a provisional valuation. The Court entertains the suit on the valuation, not finding any mistake or gross undervaluation and directing that the valuation should be modified. Ultimately the Court awards the plaintiff a sum higher than the original valuation of the suit; and that party, on the plea that on the accounts now taken he is entitled even to a larger sum, goes up in appeal. The question is whether the appeal should be presented in a Court to which appeals on the original valuation of the suit would lie, or in the one, which is competent to entertain appeal on the valuation on the actual amount in controversy at that stage. These become crucial, where the amount in dispute at the time of the final decree is outside the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the Court, which is competent to hear appeals from a suit of the original valuation. In this state, the dividing line of the appellate jurisdictions of the District Court and the High Court is 5,000 rupees.

(2.) THE facts of this case are simple. The plaintiff who is also the appellant, sued the respondent before the Civil Judge Class I for dissolution of a partnership and for accounts, on a provisional valuation of Rs. 100, offering as usual in such cases, to pay the appropriate court -fee if the sum due to him is found higher. When, after the preliminary decree, accounts were taken, the plaintiff claimed that a sum of Rs. 9,700 in round figures was payable to him; the Court actually allowed only about Rs. 1,900. For the disallowed part of the claim at this stage i. e. Rs. 7,800 in round figures, he filed an appeal in the High Court and not in the District Court. Section 23, Madhya Bharat Civil Courts Act, runs thus: ID all suits decided by a Civil Judge in exercise of his ordinary or special jurisdiction of which the amount or value of the subject -matter exceeds Rs. 5,000, an appeal from his decision shall lie direct to the High Court. In all other cases, it shall lie to the District Court.

(3.) FOR the purposes of determining the proper appellate Court in a Civil Suit, what has to be looked at is "the amount or the value of the subject -matter of the suit". Such amount or value of the subject -matter of the suit must be taken to be the value assigned by the plaintiff in his plaint and not the value as found by the Court, unless the plaintiff has accepted the adjudication of the Court as the value of his suit for purposes of jurisdiction or unless it appears that either purposely or through gross negligence the true value of the suit has been altogether misrepresented. It may be noted that in the latter event, the Court hearing the suit would itself insist upon the proper valuation being accepted by the plaintiff. The old Lahore view is reported in Ganga Ram v. Hakim Rai, AIR 1934 Lah. 645 (2). But in the more recent decisions of the Punjab High Court reported in Mohinder Singh v. Jagjit Singh, AIR I960 P&H. 431 and in Oajja Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR I960 P&H. 407, there seems to be some mutual difference. At all events, the latter decision which is by a Full Bench is to the effect that the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction remains the same throughout the litigation which of course includes appeal. The other High Courts have been more explicit in laying down the principles identical with those given in Madhya Pradesh decision already noted. For example, Bidyadhar Bachar v. Manindra Nath Das : AIR 1925 Cal. 1076): Where a Judge has in the proper exercise of his jurisdiction passed a decree for possession and also a preliminary decree for mesne profits, he must be held to have jurisdiction to make a final decree in accordance with his decision. This jurisdiction is not limited, if, as a result of the inquiry directed by him, the mesne profits are found to exceed the amount of his pecuniary jurisdiction as regards the value of the suit. If a suit ia rightly entertained as within the jurisdiction of the Judge and a decree passed his power to grant the proper and adequate relief is not affected by any event which increases the value of the relief daring the pendency of the exit.