Skip to content


Bhimsangji Chhatrasangji Vs. Dolatsang Ji Hamirsangji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in87Ind.Cas.801
AppellantBhimsangji Chhatrasangji
RespondentDolatsang Ji Hamirsangji
Excerpt:
.....- evidence of eye witnesses however completely fixing his criminal liability ocular evidence found credible held, absence of his name in dying declaration would be of no help to accused. - ' all that the plaintiff was seeking was a declaration that he was entitled to an annuity which was enjoyed by bai suraj, and having got that declaration, he would be entitled to go to the official whose duty it was' to pay the annuity, and demand payment according to the decree of the court......judge at ankleshwar who passed a decree in favour of the' plaintiff.2. on appeal to the district judge, an issue was raised whether the court-had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. the district judge held that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the subordinate judge of the second class at ankleshwar, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court under rule 10 of order vii of the c.p.c.3. we think that that order was wrong. it depends, in the first place, upon what value should be placed on the first relief claimed, namely, the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the toda giras hak of es. 500. the district judge thought the claim was for payment of an annuity, and the value for the purposes of the court-fee under section 7 (ii).....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sued, inter alia, for a declaration that he was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of Rs. 500 received by Bai Surajkuvar as her heir and as such entitled to recover the same. The total claim was valued for Court-fees at Rs. 2,143-5-8 and also for jurisdiction. The suit was tried by the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Ankleshwar who passed a decree in favour of the' plaintiff.

2. On appeal to the District Judge, an issue was raised whether the Court-had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Judge held that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Class at Ankleshwar, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under Rule 10 of Order VII of the C.P.C.

3. We think that that order was wrong. It depends, in the first place, upon what value should be placed on the first relief claimed, namely, the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of Es. 500. The District Judge thought the claim was for payment of an annuity, and the value for the purposes of the Court-fee under Section 7 (ii) would then be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year We do not think it can be said that the plaintiff was claiming payment of an annuity, the suit really comes within Section 7 (iv), (c) 'to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed.' All that the plaintiff was seeking was a declaration that he was entitled to an annuity which was enjoyed by Bai Suraj, and having got that declaration, he would be entitled to go to the official whose duty it was' to pay the annuity, and demand payment according to the decree of the Court. The Court-fee stamp would be according to the amount at which the relief sought was valued in the plaint, namely, Rs. 500.

4. The next question is what would be the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value as determinable for the Computation of Court-fees in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paras v, vi, ix and para. x, Clause (d) is the same for purposes of jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly the appeal will be allowed and the appeal will be sent back to the District Judge for being heard on its merits The appellant will be entitled to his costs of the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //