GIRIDHARI KALSAI Vs. RAIBARI SAHARANI ALIAS RAIBARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits is the appellant . In this appeal against a reversing Judgment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he and his brother defendant No. 7 Samaru, were reversioners and were entitled to the properties which were owned and possessed by late Chai, The learned Munsif, Bargarh framed four issues and came to hold that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit land after eviction of defendant No. 1 therefrom; the sale deeds executed in favour of some of the defendants were invalid. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh held that the plaintiff and defendant No, 7 were reversioners in respect of the properties of late Chai and their right, title and interest in respect of part of the suit land, i.e., except those which were sold to defendant Ho. 1, her husband and . defendant No. 3. It is relevant to mention here that objection was raised to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the same was patently undervalued, and the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. This was decided as a preliminary issue. The appellate Court came to hold that the lower Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and the decree which was passed without pecuniary jurisdiction was a nullity. He, however, felt that because of the long pendency of the dispute, it was not proper to remand the suit. He also interfered with some of the findings and granted reliefs as aforestated. - -

(3.) ON consideration of the rival submissions, I find that undoubtedly the learned Subordinate Judge has not dealt with the various aspects of the case in its proper perspective. He has not discussed the evidence and the points involved in detail. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the need to discuss in detail the various aspects is imperative. While confirming a view, there may not be necessity for repeating the reasonings, and the appeal can in such cicumstances be disposed of by briefly describing the points at issue, reasoning adopted by the Court below and the view of affirmation by the appellate Court. But where the reasonings and the decision of the lower Court are intended to be upset, it is desirable that reasons should be ascribed in support of the view and the conclusions. If this is not done, the order can certainly be characterised as perverse. In the instant case, unfortunately the appellate Court has not given adequate reasons and also not indicated the basis for its conclusions. The, appeal should be re -heard by it. While hearing the appeal he shall also consider the point relating to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is well -settled that even though the appellate Court holds that the original Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction, yet it may proceed to deal with the matter if it is satisfied that no prejudice is caused to a party. Reference in this context may be made to Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (in short the 'Act'). It inter alia provides that an objection relating to lack of pecuniary Jurisdiction shall not be entertained unless the objection was raised in the Sower Court appropriately. It also provides that for leasons to be recorded in writing, regarding over or under valuation and prejudicial affectation, such plea may he entertained by the appellate Court. In the instant case, the learned Subordinate Judge came to a definite finding that the decree was a nullity and therefore, without considering the question of prejudice, he should not have dealt with the merits of the appeal. I, therefore, remit the matter back to the appellate Court for re -disposal of the appeal in accordance with law. While disposing of the appeal and deciding the question relating to pecuniary jurisdiction , the appellate Court shall keep in mind the mandates of Section 11 of the Act.