PEYARE LAL Vs. BANKE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal, which involves only a point of law, are as follows: There was a plot of land measuring 20 bighas and odd within the zamindari of the plaintiffs. One Ratan Lal who was a lambardar of the mahal and under whom the plaintiffs of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen claim, instituted a suit against the predecessor in title of the present defendants for ejectment. It was alleged that the defendant was Ratan Lal's tenant, that he had put the land to a use which was inconsistent with the letting of it for agricultural purposes and that therefore, he had laid himself open to ejectment. The suit was instituted under Section 57(b) of the Tenancy Act. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but it succeeded on appeal. The judgment of the District Judge was upheld on a second appeal filed by the defendant. In the execution department it was found that although the holding had related to 20 bighas and odd the claim had been confined to only 10 bighas and odd and accordingly the plaintiff was put in possession of 10 bighas and odd area. After delivery of possession Ratan Lal died and was succeeded by the present defendants. The plaintiffs tried to obtain an order in their own favour in the mutation department, but were unsuccessful owing to an opposition on the part of the defendants. The revenue Court found that the defendants were in possession. Thereupon the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted. The plaintiffs stated that there was an arrangement by which the 10 bighas 11 biswas decreed in the former suit was marked off on the western side of the plot and this area was held by them.

(2.) The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal the suit has been decreed.

(3.) The question that has been raised here and that was discussed in the Courts below was this. The rent for the holding from which the ejectment of the predecessor-in-title of the defendants was only Rs. 18. For the purposes of Jurisdiction the valuation of the suit would be one year's rent, viz., Rs, 18 [see Court Fees Act, Section 7. XI (cc) and Suits Valuation Act, Section 8.] Thus under the law, the valuation for the purposes of Court-fee and the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction was only a sum of Rs. 18, An appeal to the District Judge from a judgment of an Assistant Collector of the first class is allowed only where the subject matter of the suit is valued at over Rs. 100. The subject-matter of the suit was worth Rs. 18(and this has been found by the Court of first instance) and no appeal lay to the District Judge. The plaintiff however appealed having valued his appeal at the sum of Rs. 125. The defendant overlooked this over-valuation and accepting the plaintiff's valuation as correct filed a second appeal to this Court which, as already stated, was dismissed. The present appellants argument is this. The District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, nor had this High Court any jurisdiction to hear a second appeal. The result is that the judgment of the Assistant Collector stands as the only final judgment in the case. That judgment dismissed the suit in toto and it follows that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. The suit is really barred as res judicata.