Skip to content


Kanakraj Vs. Gopikisan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 64 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1978WLN(UC)22
AppellantKanakraj
RespondentGopikisan
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....suit was not triable by munsif city.;the plaintiff prayed for possession of the entire land comprised in the plot bearing no. 383 and as far as the relief of possession is concerned, the suit should have been valued on basis of the market value of the land comprised in the aforesaid plot no. 383.;the court fees should have also been paid by the plaintiff on the basis of the value of land in dispute in the suit being rs. 9,000/- the natural corollary of the aforesaid conclusion is that the suit is not triable by the munsif's court, as the valuation of the suit in respect of the relief of possession and injunction would be more than rs. 9,000/-.;revision dismissed - - a perusal of the pleadings of both the parties clearly lead to the conclusion that the dispute between both the parties..........as preliminary issues. the defendant desired to lead evidence in respect of the valuation of the land in dispute and the constructions made thereon, but the learned counsel for the plaintiff accepted the valuation mentioned by the defendant in respect of the plot in dispute in his written statement and desired that the aforesaid issues may be decided without recording any evidence. the trial court thereupon held that the suit should have been valued at rs. 9,000/- in respect of the relief of possession, according to the value specified by the defendant in respect of the plot in dispute. it was also held that as the plaintiff claimed possession over the land in dispute and not over the building constructed on it and as such the court-fees was payable on the market value of the land only.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. This revision application has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur dated December 8, 1973 upholding the order passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur dated August 23, 1973 in respect of the decision of issues No. 11 and 14.

2. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 600/- in respect of the relief of possession of the disputed property and paid a court-fee of Rs. 45/- thereon. The objection of the defendant was that the market value of the disputed land was about Rs. 9,000/- and of the constructions made by the defendant thereon was also Rs. 9,000/- and as such the valuation of the suit for purposes of payment of court-fees should have been Rs. 18,000/- in respect of the relief of possession and, thus, the court-fees paid was in-sufficient. The trial court treated issues No. 11 and 14 as preliminary issues. The defendant desired to lead evidence in respect of the valuation of the land in dispute and the constructions made thereon, but the learned Counsel for the plaintiff accepted the valuation mentioned by the defendant in respect of the plot in dispute in his written statement and desired that the aforesaid issues may be decided without recording any evidence. The trial court thereupon held that the suit should have been valued at Rs. 9,000/- in respect of the relief of possession, according to the value specified by the defendant in respect of the plot in dispute. It was also held that as the plaintiff claimed possession over the land in dispute and not over the building constructed on it and as such the court-fees was payable on the market value of the land only and not in respect of the constructions made thereon. The trial court also came to the conclusion that as the valuation of the suit, for purposes of relief of possession, should have been Rs. 9,000/-, the suit was not triable by the Munsif's court as that court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur on appeal, after considering the averments made by the parties in their respective pleadings, came to the conclusion that the suit was for possession of the entire plot of land bearing No. 383 in Masuria Colony, Jodhpur and not in respect of only the portion thereof over which constructions had been made by the defendant. Thus, the decision arrived at by the trial court in respect of the valuation of the suit in respect of the relief of possession was upheld by the appellate court.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the pleadings of both the parties clearly lead to the conclusion that the dispute between both the parties related to the possession of the entire plot of land bearing No. 383 situated in Masuria Colony at Jodhpur. The mere fact that the plaintiff has prayed for demolition of constructions made over a portion of the plot in dispute could not lead to the conclusion that the unlawful possession of the defendant was alleged only in respect of that portion of the plot in dispute over which construction had actually been made by the defendant. The plaintiff prayed for possession of the entire land comprised in the plot bearing No. 383 and as such, so far as the relief of possession is concerned, the suit should have been valued on the basis of the market value of the land comprised in the aforesaid plot No. 383. As the learned Counsel for the plaintiff agreed that the valuation mentioned by the defendant in his written-statement regarding the market value of the plot of land maybe accepted, there is no reason for interfering with the decision arrived at by both the courts below that the suit should have been valued at Rs. 9,000/- for purposes of relief of possession and that the court fees should have also been paid by the plaintiff on the basis of the value of land in dispute in the suit being Rs. 9,000/-. The natural corollary of the aforesaid conclusion is that the suit is not triable by the Munsif's court, as the valuation of the suit in respect of the relief of possession and injunction would be more than Rs. 9,000/-. Therefore, I am in agreement with the courts below that the valuation of the suit for purposes of the relief of possession should be Rs 9,000/- and the plaintiff should pay court-fees on the aforesaid basis. The decision of the two courts below in respect of the question that the suit is not triable by the court of learned Munsif is also upheld. I may also monitor; that incidentally issue No. 10 which relates to the question of valuation of the suit for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction also stands disposed of Thus, the issues No. 10, 11 and 14 stand disposed of.

4. In the result, the revision application is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The record of the trial court should be returned to that court immediately, so that the plaint may be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court.


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