Skip to content


Koli Jagjivan Raja Makwana and ors. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)1GLR609
AppellantKoli Jagjivan Raja Makwana and ors.
RespondentState
Excerpt:
- .....is filed against the order of learned extra assistant judge, rajkot, camp at gondal, wherein the learned judge has held that the plaintiffs are liable to pay court-fees on the valuation of rs. 20,000/- equal to the market value of half the share of the suit land. the learned judge has come to this conclusion on the basis that earlier there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants whereby the plaintiffs had agreed to sell their half share to the defendants for a sum of rs. 20,000/-. it is claimed on behalf of the state that in the present suit the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is to get exclusive possession of their half share in the suit property and therefore, the proper valuation of the suit property should be rs. 20,000/-.2. it is quite an erroneous submission.....
Judgment:

A.S. Qureshi, J.

1. This revision application is filed against the order of learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot, camp at Gondal, wherein the learned Judge has held that the plaintiffs are liable to pay court-fees on the valuation of Rs. 20,000/- equal to the market value of half the share of the suit land. The learned Judge has come to this conclusion on the basis that earlier there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants whereby the plaintiffs had agreed to sell their half share to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It is claimed on behalf of the State that in the present suit the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is to get exclusive possession of their half share in the suit property and therefore, the proper valuation of the suit property should be Rs. 20,000/-.

2. It is quite an erroneous submission because the plaintiffs being the co-owners are already in joint possession of the suit premises and that the sole relief claimed is to separate their share from that of the respondents so that they may have exclusive possession of their share in the jointly owned suit fields. The contention of Mr. Shah is, therefore, upheld that for the purposes of court fees the plaintiff's suit is not governed by Section 12, Sub-section (3) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. But the same is governed by Section 6, Clause V(a) of the Court Fees Act and hence the claim for additional court-fees is untenable, and is hereby set aside.

3. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.


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