Ganga Ram v. L.Madan Lal Kapur

Kilam J.:-

This is a first appeal against a decree passed by the Learned City Judge Sri-nagar on 18th Katik 2008 and arises out of the following facts:-

(2) The plaintiff brought a suit for accounts against the defendant-appellant, L. Ganga Ram. For purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction he valued his suit at Rs. 1100/-. The learned City Judge after going through the accounts, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6938/10/. The defendant-appellant has now come up in first appeal to this Court.

(3) On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent a preliminary objection is taken that the defend-ant-appellant has chosen a wrong forum of appeal and that the appeal does not lie to this Court and should have been preferred in the District Court. He has based his objection on the fact that the plaintiff has valued the suit for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 1100/-. Under these circumstances the forum of appeal, in his submission, would be the Dis­trict Court and not the High Court.

(4) The question to be determined by us now is as to what is to be taken as the value of the suit for purpose of determining the appel­late forum in such cases as the one before us in which the suit has been valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 1100/-, but in which the value as found by the trial Court is more than Rs. 6000/-. It is not denied by either side that in suits for accounts the plain­tiff has liberty to put a tentative valuation upon his suit for purpose of court fee and this will be its value for purpose of jurisdiction as well. But in this case in which the Court finds that a larger amount is due to the plaintiff, we have got to see as to whether the appellate forum will be determined by the original valua­tion of the suit or by the value as found by the trial court. On this point, so far as the Indian High Courts are concerned, there is a conflict. According to the Lahore High Court the amount found due and decreed is the value of the suit and determine the appellate forum when it exceeds the amount of which relief sought in the plaint is valued. Reference may in this connection be made to - 'Kalu Ram v. Hanwant Ram', AIR 1934 Lah 488 which is a Full Bench judgment. In this case it has been laid down that if the Court finds in an account suit that a higher amount is due to the plain­tiff than the one at which he has valued his relief in the plaint, the value of the subject matter found by the Court will be the value of the subject matter for purpose of determin­ing the appellate forum.

The Bombay High Court in an earlier judg­ment - 'Ibrahimji Issaji v. Benjanji Jamsedji', 20 Bom 265 also took the same view. This was an account suit in which the plaintiff had valued his claim at Rs. 600/- and the Subordi­nate Judge had passed a decree for Rs. 30,830/9/2. The defendant appealed to the High Court and the objection that the appeal should have been preferred with the District Judge was over-ruled. The Bombay judgment - '20 Bom 265' was considered in a later ruling of the same High Court - 'Kavasji v. Dinshaji', 22 Bom 963. In the latter case the plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs. 130/-, but the Sub-Judge found the property in suit worth over a Lakh of rupees. The Sub Judge drew up a preliminary decree and directed that the defendant should pay this amount in Court within two weeks. ' Against this order the defendant appealed to the District Court. The District Judge returned the appeal for presentation to the High Court on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was found to exceed Rs. 5000/-. The High Court held that the appeal lay to the District Judge. The correctness of the decision in - '20 Bom 265' was doubted in - '22 Bom 963' (a Division Bench judgment) as would become evident by the learned observations of Parson J. who delivered the main judgment. His Lordship observed that:

"I have some doubt of its - '20 Bom 265' cor­rectness, and would point out what seems to me an anomaly, viz., that though a plaintiff is allowed to place any value he pleases on his claim in order to select the forum in which he may file his suit3 the permission does not extend beyond decree, the forum of appeal being governed not by that value but by the value decreed."

This point has been considered in a Division Bench judgment of this Court. In - Manohar Diiss v. Birandari Sheiklupurain', 38 Pun L R (J & K) 88 it has been held that

“The value of the subject-matter of a suit must be its valuation at the time of its insti­tution and the amount or value of the subject matter as fixed in the plaint should determine the Court to which the appeal lies."

There are other Indian High Courts which have taken a similar view as this Court. In - 'Putta Kannayya Chetti v. Venkata Narasayya'. AIR 1918 Mad 998 (2) (FB) which is a Full Bench judgment it has been held that "

Where a suit for accounts is instituted in a District Munsiff's Court, the plaintiff valuing the subject matter of the suit at an amount within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Dis­trict Munsiff, and a decree is passed for more than Rs. 50007- the appeal from that decree lies to the District Court and not to the High Court."

The Allahabad High Court is also of the same view. In - 'Abdul Majid v. Ala Bux', AIR 1925 All 376 it has been held that

"In order to determine the proper appellate court what has to be looked at is the value of the original suit, i.e., the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit. The word "Value" must be taken to be the value assign­ed by the plaintiff in his plaint and not the value as found by the Court unless it appears that, either purposely or through gross negli­gence, the true value has been altogether mis­represented by the Plaintiff."

In this case a Full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court - '34 Cal 954' which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case before us was discus­sed and dissented from. In -'Ijjatulla v. Chandra Mohan', 34 Cal '954 it was held that if the amount actually due ex­ceeds Rs. 5000/- though the value of the suit was fixed at a lesser amount - an appeal would lie to the High Court and not to the District Court. But quite a different view has been taken in a later Full Bench case of the same High Court - 'Bidyadhar Bachar v. Manindra Nath Das', AIR 1925 Cal 1076 (FB). In this case it has been laid down that the forum of appeal in cases in which the plaintiff has the right to put in a tentative value of the subject matter of the suit is determined with reference to the value of the suit and not the amount decreed. Somehow or other, the previous judg­ment -'34 Cal 954' has not been referred to in - 'AIR 1925 Cal 1076'.

(5) From the above discussion it becomes clear that the weight of authority is in favour of holding that for determining the appellate forum in account suits wherein the plaintiff has the right to value his suit tentatively, the ap­pellate forum will be determined not by the amount found due to the plaintiff or the defen­dant, but by the value which the plaintiff puts on the subject matter of his suit in the plaint. We, therefore, hold that the present appeal is not entertain able by the Court. The appeal will be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in a proper Court. The defendant-appellant shall pay Rs. 50/- as costs to the plaintiff-respondent in this Court.

B/V.B.B. Appeal dismissed.