Judgment 1. This appeal has been put up for passing an order on Stamp Reporters report that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court because valuation of the decree under appeal is Rs. 43010/-. 2. The appellants lawyer submitted that there were two suits before the court below (Title Suit No. 26/88 and Title Suit No. 38/91). Both the suits were heard analogous and common judgment dated 31.5.2001 was passed. In suit no. 26/88 the plaintiff Amar Chand Srivastav had sought partition of the suit property and declaration that a particular ladabi allegedly executed by him was forged and fabricated. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sold his share to one Siya Ram Rai who filed another suit no. 38/91 seeking declaration of his title etc. In the suit filed by Siya Ram Rai the valuation was given Rs. 45,000/- and in the suit filed by Amar Chand Srivastav, valuation was given Rs. 43010/-. However, the trial court raised the valuation of the suit filed by Siya Ram Rai to Rs. 73,000/-. Against the judgment passed in that suit, there is an appeal being F.A. No. 305/2001 which has been admitted and this appeal is reported to be not maintainable because of its valuation. But both the suits were disposed of by one common judgment and, hence, it would be in the interest of justice that both should be heard in this Court. 3. Of course, an appeal, the valuation of which is less than Rs. 50,000/- has to be heard by the District Judge, but the question is whether there is complete want of jurisdiction of this Court to hear such an appeal. Admittedly, both the suits under reference were disposed of by a common judgment and common question of law and fact were involved. So, there are chance of conflicting decisions by the two courtsone by this Court and the other by the District Judge. Moreover, there is no complete want of jurisdiction in a higher court to hear a case which is triable or fit to be heard by a lower court. The law is that the lowest court competent to decide a case must hear it. But that does not mean that a court higher than the concerned court does not have jurisdiction to try or hear a case which would legitimately be heard and decided by the lower court. The law is that the lowest court competent to decide a case must hear it. But that does not mean that a court higher than the concerned court does not have jurisdiction to try or hear a case which would legitimately be heard and decided by the lower court. It is common knowledge that courts of Sub Judges hear and decide the suita triable by Munsif and even appeals against the judgment of Munsif which may be heard by Sub Judge are being heard by Additional District Judge or District Judge.That clearly goes to show that there is no complete want of jurisdiction in the higher court for hearing or deciding the case which may be decided or heard by a lower court. So, in the interest of justice and in the interest of just and correct decision of the two suits against which the two appeals have been heard before this Court, it is desirable that both the appeals should be heard and decided by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that this appeal is maintainable and may be heard by this Court as the other appeal being F.A. No. 305/2001 has been admitted, according to the submission of the appellants lawyer. 4. The objection of the Stamp Reporter is, accordingly, disposed of.