Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan
AIR 1954 SC 34019541 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The plaintiffs valued their suit so that it went to a lower court. After losing on the merits, they argued in second appeal that, on the correct valuation, the appeal should have gone to the High Court and the decree was without jurisdiction.
- Issue
- Whether a decree passed by a court that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because of wrong valuation is a nullity.
- Held
- A decree passed by a court without inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged even in execution. But under S.11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, an objection based on over or under valuation cannot be entertained in appeal unless it caused prejudice on the merits; a party cannot complain of his own valuation. The same policy appears in S.21 CPC for territorial jurisdiction.
- Principle
- Lack of inherent jurisdiction makes a decree void; defects of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction do not, unless there is prejudice.
Facts
- The plaintiffs valued their suit so that it went to a lower court. After losing on the merits, they argued in second appeal that, on the correct valuation, the appeal should have gone to the High Court and the decree was without jurisdiction.
Issue
- Whether a decree passed by a court that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because of wrong valuation is a nullity.
Held
- A decree passed by a court without inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged even in execution. But under S.11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, an objection based on over or under valuation cannot be entertained in appeal unless it caused prejudice on the merits; a party cannot complain of his own valuation. The same policy appears in S.21 CPC for territorial jurisdiction.
Cite this
Citation
Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1625415/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.