9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Substantial Question of Law 2. Valuation of Subject-Matter 3. Right to Appeal to the Supreme Court 4. Adoption and Contesting of Valuation 5. Application of Res Judicata and Estoppel 6. Principle of Approbat and Reprobat Detailed Analysis: 1. Substantial Question of Law The court identified that the appeal involves the determination of a substantial question of law. This was a prerequisite for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution. The substantial question of law was deemed satisfied, thereby affirming the right to appeal. 2. Valuation of Subject-Matter The suit was initially valued at Rs. 9650 by the respondents (plaintiffs), and this valuation was adopted by the petitioners (defendants) for the purpose of paying the necessary court-fee for the appeals. However, the petitioners later contended that the real value of the properties was more than Rs. 20,000. The court examined whether the petitioners could go behind the initial valuation and show the real value. 3. Right to Appeal to the Supreme Court Article 133 of the Constitution and Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) were considered to determine the right of a party to appeal to the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the right of appeal is a constitutional right and cannot be impaired by an erroneous statement as to the value of the subject-matter by a party. The real value of the subject-matter must be ascertained to decide the right to appeal. 4. Adoption and Contesting of Valuation The court discussed the circumstances under which a party could contest the valuation adopted at an earlier stage. It was noted that the rules of procedure and evidence, such as res judicata and estoppel, would apply when determining the real value of the subject-matter. The court held that a party is not absolutely precluded from showing the real value, even if they adopted a different valuation earlier. 5. Application of Res Judicata and Estoppel The principle of res judicata was discussed in relation to whether a party could be estopped from contesting the valuation. The court concluded that an erroneous valuation without more cannot amount to a representation that would estop a party from showing the real value. The court also clarified that the principle of constructive res judicata cannot apply where there was no duty on the defendant to contest the value given by the plaintiff. 6. Principle of Approbat and Reprobat The court examined the rule that a party cannot both approbate and reprobate, which is a species of estoppel. This rule prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions to gain advantage. The court held that this rule would apply only if the party had a choice between two alternative courses and derived an advantage from the chosen course. In the instant case, no advantage accrued to the defendant by adopting the lower valuation, as the appeal would lie to the High Court regardless of the valuation. Conclusion: The court concluded that it would be open to any party, be he the plaintiff or defendant, to go behind the valuation adopted in the plaint or in the memorandum of appeal and show the real value of the subject-matter in dispute. This is subject to two exceptions: (1) where there has been a judicial adjudication of the correctness of the original valuation attracting the principle of res judicata, and (2) where the party making the original valuation or adopting it had an option and gained an advantage or caused detriment to the opposite party by exercising that option. Final Order: The court accepted the valuation of the subject-matter as above Rs. 20,000 and granted the petitioners a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution, acknowledging that the appeal involves a substantial question of law.
|
