BAPNA, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the Civil Judge of Jodhpur, and has been referred to a Division Bench.
(2.) THE opposite party Ajabnath and others filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated Fagun Vadi 11, Svt. 1941, against the petitioner Vijay Kishan. THE amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 451/-, part of which only carried interest. THE mortgage was with possession. THE suit was filed in the court of Joint Kotwal No. 1, Jodhpur whose pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to suits of the value of Rs. 1,000/ -. The defendant the mortgage, set up a plea of adverse possession and in the alternative pleaded that the amount due on the mortgage, the costs of improvements and interest thereon, amounted to Rs. 3,705/ -. The mortgagee's claim for any sum in excess of the principal mortgage money was denied by the mortgagor. The Joint Kotwal recorded evidence but came to the conclusion that the amount due on the mortgage including costs of improvements and interest amounted to at least Rs. 1232/11/3. Following the decision of Laxman Hazari vs. Heerachand (1), he held that he had no jurisdiction and he ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to a proper court. The plaintiffs filed an appeal which came up for decision before the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, who held that the amount due to the mortgagee did not exceed Rs. 983/11/3, and, therefore, the court of Joint Kotwal had jurisdiction. He accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Joint Kotwal and sent the case to the court of Munsiff, Jodhpur City, which was the successor court, with directions to decide the case on the merits. The defendant has come in revision. If the view taken in Laxman Hazari vs. Heerachand (1) (1938 M. L. R. 39.) were to be accepted, a court will not proceed to deal with the preliminary issues involving the plaintiffs' right to redeem but will have to embark on an elaborate enquiry to find what amount is due to the mortgagee in order to decide the question of jurisdiction. If the court comes to the conclusion that the amount due on the mortgage exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the plaint is to be returned for presentation to the proper court and the time spent in finding the amount will not bear any fruit. But the other court may come -to the conclusion, as in this case, that the amount due to the mortgagee is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court. In this connection there were three view in the Indian High Courts: - (1) That the valuation of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction will be the value of the property sought to be redeemed; (2) That the valuation of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction will be the principal amount secured by the mortgage, and (3) That the valuation of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction will be the amount which may be found due to the mortgagee. In a recent decision of the Privy Council, Mohammad Akbar Khan vs. Mst. Motai (2) (A. I. R. 1948 P. C. 36.), it has been held that the value of the property is immaterial for the purpose of determination of valuation of a suit for redemption and that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in a redemption suit depends on the amount found due to the mortgagee. The first view has, therefore, been definitely overruled. As the amount of mortgage money due on the mortgage was undisputed in Mohamad Akbar Khan's case, there did not arise any necessity to deal with a case where the amount of money due on a mortgage was disputed and which would really involve the determination of the question whether the jurisdiction depends upon the amount of principal secured by the mortgage and which could be known from the outset or the jurisdiction depended upon what may ultimately be found to be due and payable to the mortgagee. The view taken by the High Court of Allahabad, Madras, Nagpur, Oudh and Patna is that the valuation of a suit for redemption for purpose of jurisdiction is the principal amount secured by the mortgage. The leading case is Zamorin of Calicut vs. Narayan (3) (I. L. R. 5 Mad. 284 (F. B ). ). This was before the present sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887 ). In Jallaldeen Marakayar vs. Vijaya Swami (4) (I. L. R. XXXIX Mad. 447.) their lordships, however, held that the authority of the Full Bench decision was unaffected by the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, in this respect. The Full Bench case of Zamorin of Calicut (3) has been consistently followed in the Madras High Court and it is not necessary to multiply case. The Madras view was adopted by the Patna High Court in Mahata Long Singh vs. Bishnu Lal Singh (5) (A. I. R. 1933 Patna 625.), and by Nagpur High Court in Wajidi-begum vs. Abdul Gani (6) (A. I. R. 1929 Nag. 1 ). The Allahabad cases are Kubair Singh vs. Atma Ram (7) (I. L. R. 5 All. 332.), Amanatbegum vs. Bhajanlal (8) (I. L. R. VIII All. 438 (F. B.)) and Kedar Singh vs. Matabadal Singh (9) (I. L. R. XXXI All. 44. ). The weighty authority on the other side is Jaswnat Ram vs. Moti Ram (1) (A. I. R. 1926 Lahore, 376 (F. B.) It was observed that while the Court Fees Act contained an express direction that the court fee in a suit for redemption must be computed the principal mortgage money, there is no legislative authority for treating that amount as the basis of the value for jurisdiction. After mentioning that sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act makes an exception in the case of a suit for redemption, their lordships observed: - "the result is that there is no special rule governing the valuation of a suit for redemption, and in the absence of such a rule we must act upon the general rule that the valuation of a suit must follow the value of the subject-matter thereof. And the value of the subject-matter of a redemption suit is the amount of the mortgagee's charge on the property mortgaged to him. There can be no doubt that it is the decision of a competent court and not the assertion of either party which fixed the sum, actually due, on the strength of the mortgage; and I consider that it is that sum which settles the jurisdiction of the trial court and also furnishes the test for determining the forum of appeal. " At another place in that judgment it is mentioned that if the court, to which the plaint in the first instance, returns it for want of jurisdiction, it may then be presented to a court of superior jurisdiction, and the decision of the latter court on the amount due to the mortgagee should determine the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction, provided always, that the amount thus ascertained does not exceed its pecuniary limit. The other case is of Saroda Sundry Bosu vs. Akramaneesa Khatun (2) (A. I. R. 1924 Cal. 783. ). It may be pointed out that sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act does not declare that the valuation for purpose of jurisdiction in a suit for redemption 'shall' be different from the valuation for purpose of court-fees. It 'may' be different. |but if there is no rule as pointed out in the Lahore case to fix valuation for [purpose of jurisdiction, and such value is to be according to the amount ascertained to be due, such ascertainment may involve a very long process and may perhaps be the only point in dispute in the case. There would be a great hardship if different courts came to different conclusions on this point. For instance, if after an elaborate enquiry a Munsiff came to the conclusion that the total amount payable to the mortgagee was Rs. 5,000/-, he would return the plaint. The plaintiff would then file the suit in the court of Civil Judge. The latter may come to the conclusion that the amount due was Rs. 12,000/ -. According to the Lahore High Court the plaint will again be returned. If the plaintiff then presents it before a District Judge or a Senior Civil Judge, that court may, after an elaborate enquiry, come to a finding' that the amount really due to the mortgagee was Rs. 1,500/ -. Under the law the court of lowest grade is competent to hear a suit and the plaintiff would, thus, again bit directed to seek his remedy in the court of Munsiff. In order, therefore, to set at rest this difficult situation, the true rule, in our opinion, would be that the principal sum secured by the mortgage would be the lowest value for purpose of jurisdiction; but if the mortgagor admits that a certain amount in excess of the principal sum is also due from him, the total amount admitted to be due will be the value of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction. In the latter class, the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction will be higher than the valuation for purposes of court fees, and sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act will permit this difference in valuation.
(3.) AS a result, it must be held that the original court in which the suit was filed had jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, while not agreeing with the reasons given by the learned Civil Judge, his order for re-entertaining the suit by the court of Munsiff, Jodhpur City, and for proceeding to decide the case on the merits is upheld on different grounds. This revision fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of this Court, while the costs of the first miscellaneous appeal will be costs in the cause. .;