(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a certain village that was alleged to have been leased by the defendant to the plaintiffs for a period of nine years on the 3 of February 1920. The annual rent reserved by the lease was Rs. 400. The suit was valued at Rs. 400 and was filed in the Court of the Munsif. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the village in dispute was worth about Rs. 20,000 and that the suit was not cognizable by the Munsif. This plea was overruled by the learned Munsif and eventually he passed a decree in the plaintiffs favour. The defendant filed an appeal against the decree of the trial Court in the Court of the District Judge. One of the pleas urged in the lower appellate Court was that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit and as such, the decree passed by him was a nullity.
(2.) This plea was overruled by the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed. In second appeal before me the decree of the lower appellate Court has been assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on two grounds. In the first place he has urged that the lower appellate Court has erred in law in overruling the point of jurisdiction urged before it without assigning any reason for holding that the under valuation of the suit by the plaintiffs-respondents did not prejudicially affect the disposal of the suit on its merits. The second point urged by the learned Counsel is that the value of the subject-matter of the suit being Rs. 20,000 if the suit had bean properly valued, it would have been tried by a Subordinate Judge and an appeal against his decision could lie only in the High Court and as, because of the under-valuation of the suit, the case was tried by a Court inferior in grade to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the appeal was hoard not by the High Court, but by the District Judge, it was clear that the under- valuation did prejudicially affect the disposal of the suit.
(3.) In my opinion, there is no force in either of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act prohibits an appellate Court from entertaining an objection, that by reason of the under valuation of a suit, a Court not having jurisdiction with respect thereto, unless the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the date on which the issues were framed, or the appellate Court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit was under-valued and that the under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit, on the merits. If the objection as to jurisdiction was taken in the Court of first instance before the framing of the issues, and the appellate Court is not satisfied either that the suit was undervalued or the under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit, and has before it the materials necessary for the decision of the appeal, it is authorised by Clause (2) of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act to dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the Court of first instance. The appellate Court is only required to record reasons, if it holds that the suit was over-valued, or under-valued, and that the over-valuation or under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit, but it is not required to record reasons in writing for holding, as the lower appellate Court has done in the present case, that the under-valuation had not prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit.