Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down what would constitute ‘prejudice’ under Section 11 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge consisting of Justice BK Mukherjea, Justice Vivian Bose and Justice Ghulam Hasan.  

Facts  

• The appellants instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr, for recovery of possession of 12 acres 51 cents of land situated in mauza Bardih. 
• Defendants Nos. 12 and 13 (the second party) are the proprietors of the land in question. 
• The plaintiffs alleged that on 12th April, 1943, they were admitted by the second party as occupancy tenants after paying Rs. 1,950 as salami and were put into possession of the lands. 
• The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 11 (the first party) trespassed on the lands and carried away the crops. 
• The suit was for ejecting defendants Nos. 1 to 11 and for recovering mesne profits, with the suit valued at Rs. 2,950 (Rs. 1,950 for possession and Rs. 1,000 for past mesne profits). 
• Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 contested the suit, claiming they had been in possession of the lands as tenants on batai system (crop-sharing) from fasli 1336 and had acquired occupancy rights. 
• The first party defendants contended that the second party had no right to settle the lands on the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs acquired no rights under the settlement dated 12th April, 1943. 
• Defendants Nos. 12 and 13 remained ex-parte in the proceedings. 
• The Subordinate Judge, relying on receipts marked as Exhibits A to A-114 in the patwaris' handwriting covering fasli 1336 to 1347, held that defendants Nos. 1 to 11 had been in possession for over 12 years as cultivating tenants and had acquired occupancy rights. 
• The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, finding that the settlement dated 12th April 1943, conferred no rights on the plaintiffs. 
• The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge, Monghyr, who agreed with the trial Court about the genuineness of the receipts and dismissed the appeal. 
• The plaintiffs filed a second appeal to the High Court, Patna (S.A. No. 1152 of 1946). 
• In the High Court, for the first time, the Stamp Reporter objected to the valuation in the plaint, and after inquiry, the Court determined the correct valuation to be Rs. 9,980. 
• The plaintiffs paid the additional Court-fees and then argued that on the revised valuation, the appeal from the Subordinate Judge's decree should have gone directly to the High Court, not the District Court. 
• The plaintiffs contended that their second appeal should be heard as a first appeal, ignoring the District Court's judgment. 
• The High Court, following the decision in Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain, held that the appeal to the District Court was competent and could only be reversed if the appellants proved prejudice on the merits. 
• Finding no such prejudice had been shown, the High Court dismissed the second appeal. 
• The matter came before the Supreme Court on special leave, raising a question on the construction of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the decree passed by the Court on merits is a nullity? 
• What would constitute ‘prejudice’ under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (SVA)?  
• Whether a party  who  invokes  a jurisdiction  of  a Court can complain of prejudice  on the ground of over-valuation or under-valuation?  

Observations 

• The Court observed that the defect of jurisdiction whether territorial, pecuniary or subject matter strikes at the very authority of the Court and such a defect cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties. 
• Further, Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides that a decree shall not be reversed or varied in appeal on account of defects mentioned therein when they do not affect the merits of the case. Thus, Section 99 does not provide any protection to decrees passed on merits, when the Courts which passed them lacks jurisdiction as a result of overvaluation or undervaluation. 
• It is to counter the above that Section 11 of SVA was enacted which provides that objections to the jurisdiction of a Court based on over-valuation or under-valuation shall not be entertained by an appellate Court except in the manner and to the extent mentioned in the section. 
• The Court also reiterated Section 21 CPC. The Court held that the basis of Section 21 CPC, Section 99 CPC and Section 11 of SVA is the same i.e. when a case had been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice. 
• It was further reiterated that the language of Section 11 of SVA provides that the overvaluation or undervaluation of the suit must have prejudicially affected the disposal of the case on merits. 
• The Court had to determine in the present facts if the appellants have suffered any prejudice by reason of the under valuation.  
• It was observed with respect to the facts in the present case 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. 
• The Court held that in the present facts there was a full and fair hearing of the appeal by the Court and the decision was given on merits based on the evidence in the case. Thus, no injustice was committed in the present facts. 
• Thus, the Court refused to interfere under Section 11 of SVA.  

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment dealing with the law on lack of jurisdiction of the Courts. 
• The Court in this case clarified that the prejudice alleged by the party must be one caused by the other party and not the one which is a result of one’s own acts.