Skip to content


Shaikh Ismail Vs. Malan Bi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. (H) 114 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Kant184; AIR1959Mys184; ILR1958KAR579
ActsSuits Valuation Act, 1887 - Sections 8; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 7, Rule 10
AppellantShaikh Ismail
RespondentMalan Bi and ors.
Appellant AdvocateManohar Rao Jagirdar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Jagnath Shetty, Adv.
Excerpt:
- section 17(c); [v. jagannathan, j] offence under sections 13(h)(e) r/w section 13(2)- persons authorised to investigate held, investigation conducted by police officer below the rank of inspector of police is valid in as much as there is general authorisation by state government permitting said officer to conduct investigation. -- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 156: investigation investigation conducted by same police officer who lodged fir is not barred by law. -- karnataka lokayukta act, 1984. [k.a. no. 4/1985]. section 9: [v. jagnnathan, j] investigation of offence under corruption act held, police wing of lokayukta acts independently of lokayukta or upalokayukta. .....1934 hyd 220, the hyderabad high court held that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the value of a suit for partition depends on the value of the plaintiff's share and ft is the market value of the property that has to he regarded in determining the value of the suit. on principle, the recent ruling should be followed.this is also the view that has been taken by all other high courts in india vide wajihuddin v. waliullah, ilr 24 all 381; dagdu sakharam v. totaram narayan, ilr 33 bom 658; velu goundan v. kumaravelu goundan, ilr 20 mad 289; harbhan dat v. ladli saran, air 1933 oudh 547; ma fatima v. momin bibi, air 1929 rang 211 and bhaddoo v. saddoo, air 1924 nag 86.the preponderance of the authorities is, therefore, in support of the view that the. value of the share claimed and not the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a revision petition against the order relining the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff sued the defendants for partition and separate possession of the properties in suit in which he claimed one-third share. The trial Court came to the conclusion, that the value of the entire property and not the value of the share to he partitioned determines the jurisdiction. And as its value exceeds Rs. 2,000/-. returned the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, to he presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

A Miscellaneous Appeal No. 139/1 of 1932-53 was filed by the plaintiff in the District Judge's Court, Bidar. The District Judge confirming the order of the trial Court rejected the miscellaneous appeal by its order dated 21-6-1954. Against this order, the plaintiff has come in revision before us. Relying upon the ruling in the case of Venkat Babaiah, v. Venkat Ratnayya, AIR 1953 Hyd 256, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the value of the entire property in dispute and not the value of the plaintiffs share in it which he sought to claim by a partition, should be considered for the purpose of jurisdiction. Thus, the view taken by the Court below cannot be interfered with.

I cannot concede to the argument. In a later ruling of a Divisional Bench in the case of Shiva Singh v. Jai Singh, AIR 1934 Hyd 220, the Hyderabad High Court held that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the value of a suit for partition depends on the value of the plaintiff's share and ft is the market value of the property that has to he regarded in determining the value of the suit. On principle, the recent ruling should be followed.

This is also the view that has been taken by all other High Courts in India vide Wajihuddin v. Waliullah, ILR 24 All 381; Dagdu Sakharam v. Totaram Narayan, ILR 33 Bom 658; Velu Goundan v. Kumaravelu Goundan, ILR 20 Mad 289; Harbhan Dat v. Ladli Saran, AIR 1933 Oudh 547; Ma Fatima v. Momin Bibi, AIR 1929 Rang 211 and Bhaddoo v. Saddoo, AIR 1924 Nag 86.

The preponderance of the authorities is, therefore, in support of the view that the. value of the share claimed and not the value of the entire property is the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in a suit for partition when the plaintiff claims partition and separate possession of his share. Thus, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the Court below.

2. It is not disputed that the value of the share that the plaintiff claims in this particular case docs not exceed Rs. 2,000/- which is within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds I allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the lower Court. The case is remanded to the trial Court to he tried in accordance with law. Costs will abide the result.

3. Revision allowed.


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