Skip to content


Rai Sri Krishna Mohan Ji Vs. Purshotam Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939All695
AppellantRai Sri Krishna Mohan Ji
RespondentPurshotam Das and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 12,431. no ground is shown for this method of calculation and we are not satisfied that there is any evidence in the affidavit of any value that this is the correct method of valuation. we are also not satisfied that an applicant before this court has got any right to come to this court in the present manner and allege that the valuation for jurisdiction which he put on his plaint in the trial court was too low and that he should now be allowed to enhance the valuation for the purpose of section 110, civil p.order1. this is an application for leave to appeal to his majesty in council. this court allowed the appeal and therefore did not affirm the decree of the court below. the application is under section 110, civil p.c. it is necessary for the applicant to show that it comes within the provisions of that section in regard to valuation. the applicant was the plaintiff and the valuation in his plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction was rs. 9000 and for the purpose of court, fee rs. 5081-4-0, the latter being based on the revenue of three villages and fifteen times certain annual profits from muafi. the application now alleges that the real value of the subject-matter is above rupees 10,000 in the court of first instance and in the appeal to this court. to indicate this valuation learned.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. This Court allowed the appeal and therefore did not affirm the decree of the Court below. The application is under Section 110, Civil P.C. It is necessary for the applicant to show that it comes within the provisions of that Section in regard to valuation. The applicant was the plaintiff and the valuation in his plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 9000 and for the purpose of court, fee Rs. 5081-4-0, the latter being based on the revenue of three villages and fifteen times certain annual profits from muafi. The application now alleges that the real value of the subject-matter is above Rupees 10,000 in the Court of first instance and in the appeal to this Court. To indicate this valuation learned Counsel takes the figures for revenue in three villages in the plaint and multiplies them by 20 and also multiplies the net profits by 20 instead of by 15. The result attained is Rs. 12,431. No ground is shown for this method of calculation and we are not satisfied that there is any evidence in the affidavit of any value that this is the correct method of valuation. As a matter of fact, from the time of the plaint in 1936 till the present year 1939 there has been a decline in the value of zamindari property in Gorakhpur district from which this appeal comes, and in other districts in the Province. We are also not satisfied that an applicant before this Court has got any right to come to this Court in the present manner and allege that the valuation for jurisdiction which he put on his plaint in the trial Court was too low and that he should now be allowed to enhance the valuation for the purpose of Section 110, Civil P.C. No ruling has been cited by the applicant. For these reasons we dismiss this application for leave to appeal, with costs.


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