BISHNATH SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR OF BENARES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of one Bishnath Singh and others for review of judgment given by this Bench in F.A. No. 348 of 1932, Collector of Benares V/s. Bishnath Singh First Appea. No. 348 fof 1932. The plaintiff in that suit claimed for ejectment of the defendants as thekadars under Section 205, Act 3 of 1926, Agra Tenancy Act, and Section 84 of the Act, and he claimed that the condition of the theka had been broken and asked for the relief of cancellation of the lease and dispossession of the defendants. The lease in question was for payment of Rs. 111 per annum and was a lease granted on 18 December 1875, of the entire Mauza Batoli in favour of the father of the defendants. The trial Court had dismissed the suit and on appeal this Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment with costs. The present applicants are the defendants and the point which has been raised now for the first time is that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The plaint was valued in para. 12 for Rs. 6,000 for the purpose of jurisdiction. Section 242, Agra Tenancy Act, provides for an appeal to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the First Class or a Collector in any of the suits included in Group A of Schedule 4 in which the amount or value of the subject matter exceeds Rs. 200 and it is further provided that where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit exceeds Rs. 5,000 the appeal shall lie to the High Court. No objection was taken in this Court during the hearing of the appeal that the plaint had been overvalued and that jurisdiction did not lie in the High Court for the appeal. The argument which is now made before us is that the value of the suit should have been only Rs. 111 and, therefore no appeal lay either to the District Judge or to the High Court. This argument is based on the fact that in the Court-fees Act, it is provided in Section 7(xi)(cc) that in suits between land-lord and tenant for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant, including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy, the amount of fees shall be computed according to the amount of the rent of the immoveable property to which the suit refers, payable for the years next before the date of presenting the plaint. The argument then proceeds that in the Suits Valuation Act, Section 8 provides: Whereas in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paras, v, vi and ix, and para. x, Caluse (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel, therefore, argued that the valuation both for court-fee and for jurisdiction should be Rs. 111 and, therefore that no appeal lay from the decree of the Assistant Collector refusing ejectment. Now in Section 11, Suits Valuation Act, it is provided that an objection about the overvaluation of a suit or appeal in a Court of first instance or lower appellate Court which had no jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an appellate Court unless (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.

(3.) Now the matter was not raised in appeal but is raised now in review. The principles which should govern a Court in considering such an application in review have been laid down by a Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member, in Khudal Jatul Kubra V/s. Anina Khatun A.I.R. 1924 All. 388, and it was there laid down that where the Court, assuming jurisdiction on the basis of a statement made in the plaint, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and no such plea was taken by a defendant when he had the opportunity of raising it, it could not be said that the Court had acted without jurisdiction, and a subsequent suit by the defendant to set aside the decree for want of jurisdiction would not lie and that ruling was based on Section 11, Suits Valuation Act. The plaint in the case before us laid down that for the purpose of jurisdiction the value of the property was Rs. 6,000. Now the lease was granted as long ago as 1875 and the suit was brought in 1930, that is, after an interval of 55 years. It is clear that the value of property had increased materially during this period of 55 years, and prima facie the valuation of Rs. 6,000 in the plaint would appear to be a valuation which was correct. No argument in fact has been addressed to us that the actual valuation of the property is less than the Rs. 6,000 stated in the plaint but the argument is that on account of this technical rule said to be contained in these two Acts, the valuation should be assumed to be only Rs. 111 for the purpose of jurisdiction. Reference was made for this proposition to two rulings one is Nandan Singh v. Debi Din A.I.R. 1914 All. 282 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, which was a simple suit by a landlord for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant by ejectment under Section 57, Clause (b), Tenancy Act of 1901. The other ruling to which reference was made was Raghunath Ram V/s. Sirtaj which came before a Bench of which one of us was a member. That was a case where the plaint professed to be one in a suit under Section 44, Act 3 of 1926.