1. Karan Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954) sc 340
Professional Ethics and Professional Accounting System
2. Karan Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340
This is case from CPC – Topic-Jurisdiction, which talks on various issues
regarding Jurisdiction of Courts. Try to answer the following questions yourself
after having read the summary.
• Whether Undervaluation or Overvaluation of a suit can alone be responsible
to oust the jurisdiction of a court and cause its decision to be held a nullity ?
• Can a defect of jurisdiction be cured or wavered by consent of parties?
• At which stage can invalidity of a decision be called upon to render the
decision a nullity?
3. Facts
The appellants instituted the suit for recovery of possession of land of which defendants are the
proprietors (proprietor is a person enjoying exclusive right of ownership to some property).
Plaintiffs were tenants on payment of certain sum of money and were put into possession of the
land by the defendants. The allegation was that the defendants trespassed on the land and
carried away the crops.
The suit was filed for mesne profits. (If it is determined the party using the land did not have legal
ownership, the true owner can sue for some or all of the profits made in the interim by the illegal
tenant, which are thus called “mesne profits.” Mesne profits legal definition of mesne profit
4. • Plaintiffs filed the suit in the subordinate court and valued the suit themselves and paid the
court fees on that valuation under the Suit Valuation Act.
• Subordinate court decided the case in favour of the defendants. On the basis of the suit
valuation, District Court had the – jurisdiction – to hear the appeal and therefore the plaintiffs
appealed in District Court after which they appealed to High Court where the Court
determined the correct valuation of the suit was Rs 9,980 and not Rs 2,950.
On the basis of undervaluation of the suit, which the plaintiff had themselves decided on their
own and contented that the order of the District Court was a nullity since the District Court
had no jurisdiction to hear the first appeal and the first appeal was to be heard by High court
on the basis of the corrected valuation.
5. ISSUE
1.Can a decree passed on appeal by a court which had jurisdiction to entertain it only by
reason of undervaluation, be set aside on the ground that on a true valuation that court was
not competent to entertain the appeal?
6. LAW
1.Referring to judgment in Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain, in which it was held that –
decision of the District Court could be reversed only when the appellants could establish
prejudice on the merits. However in the present case, no prejudice was shown to have
taken place.
2. “It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court
without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and
wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and
even in collateral proceedings.”
The court observed that if the question of jurisdiction was to be decided only on the
application of general principles governing the matter, there could be no doubt that the
District Court was coram non judice, and that the judgment and decree would be
nullities.
7. 3.A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territory, or whether it is in respect of the
subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree,
and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.”
However, Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act was also relied upon and a
technicality like undervaluation of the Court fees was not held to be ground for nullity
of decision of District Court when no Prejudice on merits was caused to the plaintiffs
by District Court’s decision.
8. HELD
1.The court came upon conclusion to the question – Whether the appellants have suffered
any prejudice by reason of the undervaluation?
“…… 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. 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.” Court held that no prejudice was caused to the appellants by their appeal
having been heard by the District Court.
2.Court finally held that: “There were no grounds for interference under Section 11 of the
Suits Valuation Act is correct.”
