Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
7. Section 11(a) and Section 11(b) are separated by a disjunctive 'or'. Therefore, it was open to the defendants to raise the alternative plea before the Court of appeal below that improper valuation of the suit has prejudicially affected them. The fact that the trial Court would be the Munsif or the Sub- Judge, and the first appellate Court would be the District Judge or the High Court has not at all in law been taken to cause any prejudice to the parties. These aspects have been discussed in detail in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. (supra).
Raghubar Dayal Prasad vs Ramekbal Sah on 24 May, 1985
9. Another vital aspect of the matter is the course that the learned Court of appeal below ought to have adopted if he thought that the suit was not properly valued. Learned counsel for the plaintiff (appellant) has rightly relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Raghubar Dayal Prasad v. Ramekbat Sah (supra), wherein similar issue regarding the proper valuation of the suit had arisen. The High Court did not set aside the judgment of the Courts below and had instead disposed of the appeal on merits and thereafter remitted back the matter to the lower appellate Court with the direction on the limited question to fix appropriate market value of the property and to demand payment of ad valorem Court-fee. In other words, in the instant case, it was incumbent on the learned Court of appeal below to decide the matter on merits and in the course of that ought to have decided the question of valuation of the suit. If the defendants were able to cross the hurdle created by Section 11 of the Act, then should have fixed the proper market valuation and demand payment of ad valorem Court- fee. I would like to remind the learned Court of appeal below that the High Court after disposal of the matters on merits did not remit the matter back to the trial Court but to the lower appellate Court. In so far as the present cases are concerned, the entire matter was before the learned Court of appeal below and, therefore, there could not have been the question of remanding the matter to the trial Court.
1