LexKIRAN SINGH AND OTHERS versus CHAMAN P ASWAN AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
'~
...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
117
circumvent
the mandatory provisions of the Code and
relieve the purchasers of their obligation to make the
deposit. The appellants
by misleading the Court want
to benefit by the mistake to which they themselves
contributed. They cannot be allowed to
take advan-
tage of their own wrong.
The appeal fails and is dismissed · with costs .
Appeal dismissed.
KIRAN SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
CHAMAN P ASWAN AND OTHERS.
[MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, GttuLAM Ht\SAN
·and VENK~TARAMA AYYAR JJ.]
Suits Valuation Act (Vll of 1887), s, 11-Appeal under-valued
and presented to a Court of inferior jurisdiction-Whether a decree
passed by it on the merits is a nullity-Whether mere
change of
form or error in a decision on the merits, prejudice tuithin the mean-
ing of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act-Whether a party who
invokes a jurisdiction of a Court can complain of prejudice on the
ground of over-valuation or under-valuation.
The policy underlying section ll of the Suits
Valuation Act,
as also of sections 21 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that
when a case has been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment
rendered, it sh01,1ld not be liable to be reversed purely on technical
grounds, unless a failure of Justice has resulted. The policy of the
Legislature has been
to treat
objections as to jurisdiction, both
territorial and pecuniary, as technical
and not open to
considera-
tion by an appellate Court, unless there has been prejudice on the
merits.
Mere change of form is not prejudice within
the
meaning of
section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act ; nor a mere error in the
decision on the merits of the case.
It must be one directly attri-
butable to over-valuation or under-valuation.
Whether there has been prejudice or not is a matter to he
determined on the facts of each case. The jurisdiction under se<:-
tion 11 is an equitable one to be exercised, ·when there has
been
an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by a Subordinate Court as
a result of over-valuation or under-valuation and
a
consequential
failure of justice. It is
neither possible, nor desirable to define
tiUCh jurisdiction closely or confine it within stated bounds,
1954
Manila[ Mohanlai
Shah arid Others
v.
Sardar Sayed
Ahmed Sajed
Mahmadand
·Another.
1954
April 14.
'954
Kiran Singh and
OthetS . .
.
v.
Chaman Paswan
and (!~hers.
Vtnkatarama
Ayyar.].
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
A party who has resorted to :l forum. of his .own choice o~ his
own valuation cannot himself be heard to complain of any
pre~
ju dice.
Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain (I.L.R. 27 Patna 109) ; Rajlakshmi
Dasee v. Katyayani Dasee (I.L.R. 38 Cal. 639); Shidappa Venkatrao
v'
Rachappa
Subrao
(I.L.R. 36
Born. 628) ; Rachappa Subrao
/adhav v. Shidappa Venkatrao /adhav {46 I.A. 24); Kelu Achan v.
Cheriya Parvathi Nethiar (J.L.R. 46 Mad. 631); Maol Chand v.
Ram Kishan (I.L.R. 55 All. 315) referred to.
C1v1L
APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 14 of 1953.
Appeal by special leave granted
by
the
Supreme
Court by its Order dated the 29th October, 1951, from
the
Judgment and Decree dated the 19th July,
1950,
of the High Court of Judicature
at Patna (Sinha and
Rai JJ.) in appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1152 of
1946 from the Judgment : and Decree dated the 24th
day of May,
1946, of the Court of the 1st Additional
District Judge in S. J.
Title Appeal No. 1 of
1946
arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 27th
November, 1945, of the First Court of Subordinate
Judge at Monghyr in Title Suit No. 34 of 1944.
S. C. Issacs ( Ganeshwar Prasad
and . R. C. Prasad,
with him) for the appellants.
.
B. K. Saran and M. M. Sinha for respondents
Nos. 1-9.
·
1954.
April 14. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-This appeal raises a ques-
tion on the construction of section 11 of the Suits
Valuation Act.
The appellants instituted the suit
out
of which his appeal arises, in the Court of the Subor-
dinate Judge, Monghyr, for recovery of possession "of
12 acres 51 cents of land situated in mauza Bardih, of
which defendants No~. 12 and 13, forming the second
party, are the proprietors. . The allegations in the plaint
are that on 12th April, 1943, the plaintiffs were admit-
ted by the second party as occupancy tenants on pay-
ment of a sum of Rs. 1,950
as
salami and put · into
possession
of the lands, and that thereafterExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.