JUDGMENT
Coutts, J.
1. This was a suit for a declaration of title to certain fishing rights. In the plaint the suit was valued at Rs. 1,400. The suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Purnea and was decreed in favour of the plaintiff 4. From this decree an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, who confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge.
2. In the Court of first instance one of the grounds taken by the defendants was that the suit was under-valued for purposes of jurisdiction. No issue, however, was framed and the point was undecided. On appeal to the District Judge the same point was taken but again without having considered the matter the District Judge said ‘ it seems to me the value named by the plaintiffs in respect of the property was not inadequate.” On second appeal to this Court the question of valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction was the main point taken in the appeal, and it was decided by the learned Judges who heard this appeal that there was no proper finding as to the valuation of the suit and an issue on this point was referred to the lower Appellate Court for a finding. The finding of the District Judge on this issue has now been received, and it is that the proper valuation of the property in respect of which a declaration is asked for is Rs. 16,275. Now it is not contended that this is not the correct valuation of the property, but it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the Court has no jurisdiction to question the valuation of the plaintiff. This contention is not sustainable. If the valuation put on the plaint for the purposes of jurisdiction is contested, the valuation must be decided by the Court. This was the view taken in the case of Dayaram Jagjivan v. Gordhandas Dayaram 31 B. 73 : 8 Bom.L.R. 885 and though there is no case directly to the point in this Court it is in accordance with the view which has been taken of cases coming under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. In my view, therefore, the Court must determine the value of the subject-matter of the suit.
3. The next question is, what this value is and it is contended that the suit being a suit for a declaration, the value must be what the plaintiff says it is and cannot be the value of the property in respect of which a declaration is sought as contended by the appellant. I am unable to accept the respondents’ contention. It is difficult to see bow the value of the declaration can be other than the value of the property in respect of which the declaration is asked for, and I am supported in this view by the decision in Ganapati v. Chathu 12 M. 223 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 505 where it was held that for the purposes of jurisdiction the value of a suit for a declaratory decree must be taken to be what it would be if the suit were one of possession of the property regarding which the plaintiff seeks to have his title declared. The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction then in this case is Rs. 16,275; the appeal to the District Judge was, therefore, incompetent and his order is without jurisdiction unless the case be covered by Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. It is contended that the case is covered by Section 11, inasmuch as objection was not taken at the proper time and in the proper manner and the appellant has not been prejudiced. With these contentions I am unable to agree. The objection was taken at the first possible moment, namely, in the written statement. It was again taken after issues were framed and it was taken before the lower Appellate Court. Nor con it be said that the appellant is not prejudiced inasmuch as if the suit had been properly valued, there would have been an appeal to the High Court in the first instance. The High Court would have gone into the fasts of the case and the appellant would not have been confined to urging points of law. The case, therefore, does not come under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act and the decision of the learned District Judge being without jurisdiction, the decree passed by him is void. In these circumstances I would discharge the order of the District Judge and decree this appeal with costs. The memo of appeal presented in the Court of the District Judge will be returned to the appellant.
Adami, J.
4. I agree.
