JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Perused the judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, the following substantial question of law is framed: Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any serious legal error in returning the memorandum of appeal to the appellants holding that it has no monetary jurisdiction, ignoring the relevant provisions of law under Sections 41, 49, 50 and 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and also Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 3. For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience, ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Trial Court is retained. 4. Though the respondents/defendants are served with the notice, they remained absent and unrepresented. The above substantial question of law is framed and heard simultaneously. 5. The moot question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Appellate Court without following the procedure and also without looking into the relevant provisions has disposed of the appeal in a shortcut method by ordering to return the memorandum of appeal to the appellants which is illegal. Therefore, he pleaded before this Court to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal considering the merits of the case. 6. Brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, appellants/plaintiffs in O.S.No.100/2010 filed a suit against the defendants (respondents herein) for recovery of rent amount of Rs.4,000/- and also for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants claiming that the plaintiffs are the owners and the defendants are the tenants of the suit premises. The defendants appeared before the Court and contested the proceedings by filing their written statement. Even they have gone to the extent of denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and also denied the relationship as that of landlord and tenant. There is no necessity for this Court to go in detail with regard to the pleadings and evidence of the parties on merits of the case. Even they have gone to the extent of denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and also denied the relationship as that of landlord and tenant. There is no necessity for this Court to go in detail with regard to the pleadings and evidence of the parties on merits of the case. It would suffice to extract the issues framed by the Trial Court and the findings given therein only to ascertain what exactly the finding given by the Trial Court with regard to its jurisdiction which in-turn creates jurisdiction to the appellate Court to deal with the appeals. 7. The Trial Court considering the contentious pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of the suit property, as partners of M/s. Deshpande Shankarrao and Company gave up their right and interest over the suit property in favour of plaintiffs? 2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that their father Malhar Rao Solapurkar was partner in Rukmangad Mantap Karyalaya and defendant-1 being the close friend of the father of the plaintiffs continued Mantap business in the suit property as an yearly tenant? 3. Whether plaintiffs further prove that they have legally terminated the tenancy of defendants from 1.10.2008? 4. Whether plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled for the relief as prayed in the plaint? 5. Whether defendants prove that defendant-1 trespassed into suit go-down on 1.1.1965 and raised construction with the full knowledge of owners and thereafter started his Mantap business? 6. Whether defendants further prove that suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation? 7. Whether defendants further prove that the market value of the suit property as on the date of suit was Rs.23,45,244/-, hence, Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is improper and insufficient? 8. What order or decree? 8. The Trial Court after considering the oral and the documentary evidence on record adduced and produced by the parties has given findings on the issues i.e., issue Nos.1 to 7 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Out of the above issues, finding given by the Trial Court on issue No.7 is very important for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Out of the above issues, finding given by the Trial Court on issue No.7 is very important for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Issue No.7 refers to the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of the Court fee paid and also valuation of the suit property as contended by the defendants. As could be seen from the decree passed by the Trial Court, the suit was valued at Rs.8,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee of Rs.200/- was paid on the basis of the rental value of Rs.4,000/- under Section 21 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short ‘the Act’). However, the defendants have claimed that the market value of the property is Rs.23,45,244/-. Therefore, this specific issue has been struck by the Trial Court and the same is answered in the negative. The Trial Court has observed that it is the defendants’ contention that market value of the suit property is Rs.23,45,244/-. The defendants did not raise this point at the earliest point of time prior to the settlement of the issues. It is only pleading of the defendants and they have not produced any material to show that the market value of the property is Rs.23,45,244/-. Therefore, the Trial Court has answered issue No.7 in the negative holding that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction as contended by the plaintiffs in the plaint has to be accepted and accordingly, the Trial Court held that the suit is maintainable. 9. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the findings given by the Trial Court on all other issues have preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court i.e., I-Additional District Judge, Vijayapur. However, the defendants have not preferred any appeal against the findings given by the Trial Court on issue No.7. The First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the market value of the suit property is Rs.70,65,083.75/-. Therefore, it was held that, according to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal wherein value of the subject matter exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-. On that ground, the appeal was ordered to be returned to the appellants by the learned District Judge. 10. Therefore, it was held that, according to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal wherein value of the subject matter exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-. On that ground, the appeal was ordered to be returned to the appellants by the learned District Judge. 10. Whether the judgment of the learned District Judge is proper has to be decided with reference to certain provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Peculiarity of the judgment of the First Appellate Court is that, the First Appellate Court has accepted a memo filed by the respondents/defendants submitting guidance value of the suit property issued by the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Vijayapur, wherein commercial area of the suit property measuring 1792.95 sq. ft., is valued at Rs.70,65,083.75/-. But, it appears, after filing of this memo by the respondents, the First Appellate Court has not bestowed its attention to other provisions of law and it also appears that no opportunity has been given to the parties to lead evidence in order to ascertain the correct market value of the property even assuming that market value of the property exceeds jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court. 12. Be that as it may. On looking into the materials on record, the plaint has been presented for recovery of possession as well as for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.4,000/-. The plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.8,00,000/- perhaps, that is the market value of the property as on that date for the purpose of jurisdiction and also value of suit for Court fee under Section 21 of the Act, on the basis of the arrears of rent claimed at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per annum. Even considering Section 21 of the Act, the Court fee on the amount claimed i.e., Rs.4,000/- has been claimed as arrears of rent. Therefore, the Court fee paid was sufficient. Section 41 of the Act refers to the suits filed by the Landlords against and Tenants. The provisions of Section 41(2) of the Act indicate that if the suit is for recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the termination of a tenancy, fee shall be computed on the premium, if any, and on the rent payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The provisions of Section 41(2) of the Act indicate that if the suit is for recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the termination of a tenancy, fee shall be computed on the premium, if any, and on the rent payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. This valuation of the suit is for the purpose of court fees as well as jurisdiction. It is also worth to refer to the provisions of Section 49 of the Act which indicate as to how the appellate courts have to deal with regard to Court fee and jurisdiction. The said provision says that fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. 13. Section 50 of the Act reads as under: “50. Suits not otherwise provided for: (1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same: [Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 7, the value of land specified in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the said sub-section shall, for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of courts, be the market value of such land]. (2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.” (emphasis supplied) Therefore, this provision also clears out the doubt that where there is no specific provision, computation of Court fee for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is the same. Therefore, if the said provision is read coupled with the provisions under Section 41 of the Act, the suit has to be valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and if the suit is between the landlord and tenant, as per the valuation prescribed under Section 41 of the Act. Therefore, if the said provision is read coupled with the provisions under Section 41 of the Act, the suit has to be valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and if the suit is between the landlord and tenant, as per the valuation prescribed under Section 41 of the Act. Even considering that the plaintiffs have valued the suit property for Rs.8,00,000/- that may also not proper for valuing the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. Because of Section 41, the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. As per Section 41 (2) of the Act, fee shall be computed on the premium, if any, and on the rent payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. Therefore, if the annual rental value of the property is valued at Rs.4,000/-, the suit should have been filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division instead of Civil Judge, Senior Division. 14. Be that as it may. The question is as to whether the First Appellate Court without looking into these provisions of law is right in returning the memorandum of appeal. Section 51 of the Act says that an objection by reason of overvaluation or undervaluation of the suit or appeal shall not be entertained by the appellate Court unless objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were framed and recorded, or the lower appellate Court in the memorandum of appeal to that Court. If the appellate Court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was overvalued or undervalued and that the overvaluation or undervaluation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits, then only the appellate Court can interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court with reference to the valuation. 15. In this particular case, as per the observations made by the Trial Court, very specifically, the issue of Court fee has not been raised by the defendants prior to the issues are settled and no finding has been given by the Trial Court prior to the issues have been settled. 15. In this particular case, as per the observations made by the Trial Court, very specifically, the issue of Court fee has not been raised by the defendants prior to the issues are settled and no finding has been given by the Trial Court prior to the issues have been settled. For the first time before the appellate Court, the respondents without preferring any appeal against the finding given by the Trial Court on issue No.7 have very casually presented a memo with the valuation recorded in the Sub-Registrar’s Office with regard to the market value of the property which has been accepted by the appellate Court wrongly. 16. Even otherwise, if the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the First Appellate Court has no jurisdiction or the Trial Court has no jurisdiction with regard to the Court fee and jurisdiction, the Court has to give finding under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure before returning memorandum of appeal. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “21. Objections to jurisdiction.-(1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure justice. (3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (emphasis supplied) 17. (3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (emphasis supplied) 17. On reading of the above provision, specifically Section 21(2) of CPC, it is clear that the appellate Court shall not allow the parties to raise the point of Court fee and jurisdiction unless the said objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. Unless the Appellate Court gives a finding that there has been consequent failure of justice by the Trial Court, the Court cannot return the memorandum of appeal, otherwise it should dispose of the appeal on merits. Even considering the judgment of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court, it is clear that the First Appellate Court has to normally accept the valuation made by the plaintiffs in the plaint for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction as per Section 49 of the Act. Even Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 says that appeals from the decrees and orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge lies to the District Court when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/. If it is read in consonance with Sections 41 and 49 of the Act, the valuation made in the plaint does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-. 18. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and legal aspects, when the First Appellate Court has not given any finding that there was failure or miscarriage of justice, the court should not have returned the memorandum of appeal to the appellants. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, when the Trial Court has specifically held that the suit has been valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, the appellate Court should normally accept the same unless the said issue itself is challenged before the appellate Court by the aggrieved party. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, when the Trial Court has specifically held that the suit has been valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, the appellate Court should normally accept the same unless the said issue itself is challenged before the appellate Court by the aggrieved party. Even otherwise, in this case, the suit has not been properly valued by the plaintiffs also with reference to the market value of the property as per Section 41 of the Act. If they would have valued the suit under Section 41 of the Act, they should have filed the suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division. However, as there is no finding with regard to the failure of justice or miscarriage of justice, the First Appellate Court should not have passed the order returning the memorandum of appeal to the appellants. 19. For all the above reasons, I answer the substantial question of law framed by me in favour of the appellants and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the First Appellate Court in ordering to return the memorandum of appeal to the appellants in R.A.No.139/2012 on the file of I-Additional District Judge, Vijayapur, dated 17.03.2016 is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted to the I-Additional District Judge, Vijayapur, for fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law on merits, after hearing both the parties. As the matter is of the year 2010, the First Appellate Court has to bestow its attention to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The appellants are hereby directed to appear before the First Appellate Court along with a certified copy of this judgment on 09.10.2017 so as to enable the First Appellate Court to proceed further after securing the presence of the respondents.