KIRAN SINGH AND OTHERS V. CHAMAN PASWAN
Kiran Singh And Others v. Chaman Paswan 1954 AIR 340, 1955 SCR 117
ISSUE:
- Whether a decree passed on appeal by a court that had jurisdiction to entertain it only by reason of undervaluation, be set aside on the ground that on a true valuation the court was not competent to entertain the appeal?
RULE:
- It is a well-established fundamental principle 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

FACTS:
- The appellants instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the land of which defendants are the proprietors (a proprietor is a person enjoying the exclusive right of ownership to some property).
- Plaintiffs were tenants on payment of the 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)
- 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.
- The subordinate court decided the case in favor 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 the 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 contended 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.
HELD:
- The court came upon a conclusion that 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.
- There were no grounds for interference under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is correct.