Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) ONE Naunihal Singh filed a suit for actual possession by partition of his share in a building -situate at Karnal. It was stated in the plaint that the building was evacuee property and had been purchased by Mangal Dass (Petitioner herein) for Rs. 40,000. The Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to 9931/40000th share in that building. The rest of the facts need not be stated as we are only concerned with the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. In para 8 of the plaint, the Plaintiff stated that the, value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 9,931 that is, the value of his share in the building. The High Court with the sanction of the State Government framed rules under the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the relevant rule is Rule 8 in Chapter 3 -C of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I. According to this rule, the jurisdictional value of the suits for partition of property has to be determined on the value of the whole of the property in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. According to this rule, the value for purposes of jurisdiction had to be Rs. 40,000 which was clearly mentioned as the value of the property at the time of the filing of the suit in the plaint. Instead thereof, the Plaintiff stated that the value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 9,931, that is, the value of his share in the building. The Defendants did not object to that value being stated in the plaint nor did the trial Court detect the mistake. A preliminary decree was passed by consent and after the mode of partition was decided upon, a final decree was passed. Against that final decree, an appeal was filed in the Court, of the District Judge, Karnal, in the belief that the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was. Rs. 9,931. Before that Court it was stated that the Commissioner appointed by the trial Court had determined the value of the property as Rs. 80,000 and that constituted the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The learned lower appellate Court accepted that plea and ordered that the memorandum of appeal should be returned to the Appellant for presentation to the proper Court. Thereafter, the Petitioner presented that appeal in this Court which is' pending. He also filed the present petition challenging the order of the learned lower appellate Court returning the memorandum of appeal for presentation to this Court.
(2.) IN support of his plea, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the principle that the value of the suit as fixed by the Plaintiff and not challenged by the Defendant becomes conclusive for all the subsequent stages of the suit including appeals and therefore, the District Judge, on the valuation of the suit as stated in the plaint, had undoubtedly the jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal. The learned Counsel goes on to submit that he had no jurisdiction to return the memorandum of appeal for presentation to this Court. In fact, the counsel goes to the length of saying that he had no right to determine the jurisdictional value of the appeal before him. I regret my inability to agree to that submission of the learned Counsel. Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act which admittedly applies to the facts of this case reads as under: 11(1). Notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an objection that by reason of the over -valuation or under -valuation of a suit or appeal a Court of first instance or lower Appellate Court which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an 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 over -valued or under -valued, and that the overvaluation or under -valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits. Provided that in a suit for accounts the value for purposes of jurisdiction as determined by the Court at any stage of the trial shall be final and , conclusive and shall not be liable, to be contested in appeal or revision. (2) If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub -section (1), but the Appellate Court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in Clause (b) of that sub -section and has before it the materials necessary for the determination of the other grounds of appeal to itself, it shall dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the Court of first instance or lower Appellate Court. If the objection was taken in that manner and the Appellate Court is satisfied as to both those matters and has not those materials before it, it shall proceed to deal with the appear under the rules applicable to the Court with respect to the hearing of appeals; but if it remands the suit or appeal, or frames and refers issues for trial, or requires additional evidence to be taken, it shall direct its order to a Court competent to entertain the suit or appeal.
(3.) THE provisions of this section with respect to an Appellate Court shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure or other enactment for the time being in force.;