MT JAGTARAM KUER Vs. MTMUNDER KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal for its success would depend upon two considerations: one that in fact there had been no valuation placed on the suit the particulars of which I shall mention in a moment, and the other is that Section 11, Suits Valuation Act, does not apply. In my judgment there is no support in this case to either of those contentions. The facts shortly were these: It was a suit brought by a step-mother against her step daughter for maintenance. The plaint was framed claiming a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25 a month, also claiming Rs. 970 for arrears and Rs. 25 damages. The action succeeded.

(2.) There was an appeal which apparently was dismissed for want of prosecution, the reason being that the appellant, who was defendant in the trial Court, failed to pay the court-fee. The decree then came up for execution. The defendant rasied an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., based on the contention that the Munsif passing the decree had no jurisdiction. This depended in turn upon a contention that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit as I have said was for maintenance, and it was contended that the suit Should have been valued under Section 7, Sub-section (2), as a suit for maintenance and therefore to be valued at ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year.

(3.) One of the difficulties which arose in this case was that the suit in the first place was in forma pauperis and therefore no valuation, so we are informed, was stated in the plaint. The learned Munsif in dealing with this objection came to the conclusion that Section 11, Suits Valuation Act, did not apply. He came to the conclusion also that the valuation of the suit placed it beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsif who tried it and therefore he dismissed the execution proceedings. Section 11, Suits Valuation Act, provides that an objection as to the valuation of the suit or appeal shall not be entertained by any appellate Court unless (a) the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in the lower appellate Court in the memorandum of appeal to that Court; or (b) the appellate Court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was overvalued or undervalued, and that the overvaluation or undervaluation, thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits.