Page |1

Kiran Singh V/S Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340

A research paper submitted in fulfillment of the course Civil procedure law,

Semester – V during the Academic Year 2019 – 20.

Submitted to
Dr.Meeta Mohini
Assistant professor of law

Submitted by
Pratyush Kumar,
Roll no- 1751
Course- B.A,L.L.B

Chanakya National Law University

Nyaya Nagar, Mithapur 800001, Patna

 Page |2

Acknowledgment

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge from the

bottom of my heart to all those who have helped me to put these ideas, well above
the level of simplicity and into something concrete effectively and moreover on
time.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my faculty Dr.Meeta Mohini, for
his invaluable support, guidance, and advice. His assignment of such a relevant
topic made me work towards knowing the subject with great interest and
enthusiasm.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me

immensely with sources of research materials throughout the project and without
whom I couldn’t have completed it in a present way. I would also like to thank the
library staff for working long hours to facilitate us with required materials going a
long way in quenching our thirst for education. I would also like to extend my
gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands who helped me out at every
stage of my project.

Pratyush Kumar

Semester-5.
 Page |3

Declaration Page

I Pratyush kumar student of B.A. LL.B. (Third year) in Chanakya National Law
University declare that the research project entitled “Kiran Singh V/S Chaman
Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340” submitted by me for the fulfillment of “Civil
procedure law” course is my own work. This project has not been submitted for
any other Degree / Certificate / Course in any Institution / University.
 Page |4

Table of Contents
 Acknowledgment ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

 Declaration Page..........................................................................................
 Aims And Objectives...................................................................................
 Research Methodology.................................................................................
 Hypothesis...................................................................................................
 Sources Of Data............................................................................................
 Limitations Of The Project...........................................................................

1. Introduction.................................................................................................
2. Legal Provisions.................................................................................
3. An Overview Of The Case……………………………………………
a) Facts of the case
b) Plea Presented By Defendants During Sub-Ordinate Court
c) Issues:
d) Interpretation:
4. Judgment Of The Case And Their Analysis..............................................
5. Conclusion.................................................................................................

 Bibliography................................................................................................
 Page |5

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The facts in issue in any proceeding are determined by two major factors. These are:

 to understand the importance of the Valuation in a suit

 and how it plays a key role in determining the jurisdiction of a court

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project is based mainly and heavily on written text material. It is based on the doctrinal
method of research. The segments are structured and written actively. The writing style is
descriptive as well as analytical. This project has been done after a thorough research based
upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspect of the assigned topic. The doctrinal method in this research
paper refers to various books, articles, news paper, magazine, Dictionary. In this research
paper, the researcher will only use Doctrinal method.

HYPOTHESIS

In this case the valuation done by the plaintiff was faulty so they have raised an objection on
the procedure, is it valid or invalid.

SOURCES OF DATA

The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the
project.

1. Primary Sources : Books.

2. Secondary Sources :Material available on the internet.

 Page |6

1. INTRODUCTION
The policy underlying section 11 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 should 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 consideration 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 attributable to over-valuation or under-valuation. Whether there has been prejudice
or not is a matter to be determined on the facts of each case. The jurisdiction
under section 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
such jurisdiction closely or confine it within stated bounds. 118 A party who has resorted to
a forum of his own choice on his own valuation cannot himself be heard to
complain of any prejudice.
 Page |7

2. LEGAL PROVISIONS
A. Suits valuation act 1887
SECTION -11:

Procedure where objection is taken on appeal or revision that a suit or appeal was not
properly valued for jurisdictional purposes.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in 1*section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882),
an objection that by reason of the overvaluation or under-valuation of a suit or appeal a Court
of first instance or lower Appellate Court which had not 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
over- valuation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or
appeal on its merits.

(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.

(3) 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 appeal
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.

(4) 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 2*section 622 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882) or other enactment for the time being in force.
 Page |8

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 21- Objections To Jurisdiction.-

No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court
unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless
there has been a consequent failure of justice.

Section 99 - No Decree To Be Reversed Or Modified For Error Or Irregularity Not

Affecting Merit Or Jurisdiction.

No decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal
on account of any misjoinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity
in any proceedings in the suit. not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the
Court.
 Page |9

3. AN OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

A. FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellants/plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, Monghyr, for recovery of possession of 12 acres 51 cents of land situated
in mauza Bardih, of which defendants Nos. 12 and 13, forming the second party, are the
proprietors. The allegations in the plaint are that on 12th April, 1943, the plaintiffs were
admitted by the second party as occupancy tenants on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,950 as
salami and put into possession of the lands, and that thereafter, the first party consisting of
defendants Nos. 1 to 11 trespassed on them and carried away the crops. The, suit was
accordingly laid for ejecting defendants No’s- 1 to 11 and for mesne profits, past and future,
and it was valued at Rs. 2,950, made up of Rs. 1,950 being the value of the relief for
possession and Rs. 1,000, being the past mesne profits claimed. Defendants No’s-1 to 11
contested the suit. They pleaded that they had been in possession of the lands as tenants on
batai system, sharing the produce with the landlord, from fasli 1336 and had acquired
occupancy rights in the tenements, that the second party had no right to settle them on the
plaintiffs, and that the latter acquired no rights under the settlement dated 12th April 1943.
Defendants Nos. 12 and 13 remained ex-parte.

B. PLEA PRESENTED BY DEFENDANTS DURING SUB-ORDINATE COURT:

Defendants Nos.- 1 to 11 contested the suit and they pleaded that they had been in possession
of the lands as tenants on batai system, sharing the produce with the landlord from fasli 1336
and had acquired occupancy rights in the tenements, that the second party had no right to
settle them on the plaintiffs, and they latter acquired no rights under the settlement deed dated
12th April, 1943.
 P a g e | 10

C. ISSUES:

1. Whether there is any position in law regarding aCourt to entertain a suit or an appeal
over which it has no jurisdiction and what is the effect of s. 11 of Suit Valuation Act,
1887 is on that position?
2. Is the District court of Monghyr, judgment binding on the parties of the suit and
whether it is considered as the first appeal or not?
3. Can a decree passed on appeal by a Court which had jurisdiction to entertain it only
by reason of under-valuation be set aside on the ground that on a true valuation that
Court was not competent to entertain the appeal?
4. Whether the appellants have suffered any prejudice by reason of the under-valuation?

D. INTERPRETATION:

The learned Full-Bench has concluded that there is considerable authority in the Indian
Courts that clause (a) and (b) of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act should be read
conjunctively, notwithstanding the use of the word “or.” If that is the correct interpretation,
the plaintiffs would be precluded from raising the objection about jurisdiction in an appellate
Court. But even if the two provisions are to be construed disjunctively, and the parties held
entitled u/s. 11 (1) (b) to raise the objection for the first time in the appellate Court, even
then, the requirement as to prejudice has to be satisfied, and the party who has resorted to a
forum of his own choice on his own valuation cannot himself be heard to complain of any
prejudice.
 P a g e | 11

4. JUDGMENT OF THE CASE AND THEIR ANALYSIS

Court heard the appeal in a fair manner and gave its decision based on the merits on a
consideration of the entire evidences presented in the case, and no injustice is shown to have
resulted in its disposal of the matter. The decision of the learned Judges that there were no
grounds for interference under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act and It is a fundamental
principle that is well-established and that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a
nullity and that even consent of parties could not cure defects of the S. 11 of the Suits and
Valuation Act, and it provides that objections to jurisdiction of a Court based on over-
valuation or under-valuation shall not be entertained by an Appellate Court except in manner
and to extent mentioned in section It is a self-contained provision complete in itself and when
it comes to the point to the prejudice the court has stated that “Prejudice can be a ground for
relief only when it is due to the action of another party and not when it results from one’s
own act. Courts cannot recognise that as prejudice which flows from the action of the very
party who complains about it. Even apart from this, we are satisfied that no prejudice was
caused to the appellants by their appeal having been heard by the District Court. In the result,
the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. And the said filed by plaintiff/appellants has been
dismissed by the Hon’ble Court.
 P a g e | 12

5. CONCLUSION

The case is to understand the importance of the Valuation in a suit and how it plays a key role
in determining the jurisdiction of a court and also to realize its involvement in the cases. It
also focuses on Section-11 of Suits and Valuation Act which confers certain responsibility
upon the parties of the suit to properly value the required amount and particularly regarding
the Procedure where objection is taken on appeal on revision that a suit or appeal was not
properly valued for jurisdictional purposes. In this particular case the valuation done by the
plaintiff was faulty so they have raised an objection on the procedure that when the valuation
was wrong then such an order given by the court in that particular suit shall become void or
not according to this particular section of law.
 P a g e | 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The researcher has consulted following sources to complete the final draft:

BOOKS:

 The Code of Civil Procedure,1908 by Dr. T.P.Tripathi , Allahabad Law Agency.

 Code of Civil Procedure , Bare Act

WEBSITES

 http://www.aaptaxlaw.com/code-of-civil-procedure/order-xxii-code-of-civil-
procedure-rule-1-2-3-4-5-6-death-marriage-and-insolvency-of-parties-order-22-of-
cpc-1908-code-of-civil-procedure.html
 http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/legal-provisions-of-order-xxii-of-code-
of-civil-procedure-1908-c-p-c-india-abatement-in-general/114374