Skip to content


Sm. Belarani Bhattacharyya and ors. Vs. Khondkar Asadar Rahaman and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Case No. 334 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1975Cal79,77CWN633
ActsCourt-Fees Act, 1870 - Section 7
AppellantSm. Belarani Bhattacharyya and ors.
RespondentKhondkar Asadar Rahaman and ors.
Appellant AdvocateMrityunjoy Palit, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateBhupendra Kumar Panda, Adv.
DispositionRevision petition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....is alleged by them that the value of the suit will be more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned munsif. the learned munsif framed the said issue no. 7 only on the question of valuation of the disputed lands. it does not appear that there is any basis for valuing the suit at rs. 1,000 for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees. the learned munsif in his order has observed that as the disputed lands are pirottar properties and recorded as such in the r. s. record-of-rights and that theplaintiffs not having claimed the disputed land's as secular properties, there is no objective standard far determining the market value of the disputed lands. in that view of the matter, the learned munsif has accepted the valuation of the suit as made by the plaintiffs. in my opinion, the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Murari Mohan Dutt, J.

1. This Rule is directed against order No. 25 dated December 5, 1969, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Chandernagore, deciding issue No. 7 regarding the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit.

2. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for a declaration that the disputed lands are Pirottar properties and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from denying the Pirottar character of the disputed Lands or from interfering with the possession of the Muslim public of Haripal ,as representing the Pirottar. The plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees at Rs. 1.000 under Section 7, Clause (v) of the Court-Fees Act and the plaintiffs have paid ad valorem court-fees on that value.

3. The defendants in their written statement challenged the value of the suit, as made by the plaintiffs. It is alleged by them that the value of the suit will be more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. The learned Munsif framed the said issue No. 7 only on the question of valuation of the disputed Lands. It does not appear that there is any basis for valuing the suit at Rs. 1,000 for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees. The learned Munsif in his order has observed that as the disputed lands are Pirottar properties and recorded as such in the R. S. record-of-rights and that theplaintiffs not having claimed the disputed land's as secular properties, there is no objective standard far determining the market value of the disputed lands. In that view of the matter, the learned Munsif has accepted the valuation of the suit as made by the plaintiffs. In my opinion, the learned Munsif is not correct in proceeding on the view that there is no adjective standard for ascertaining the market value of the disputed lands. Whether a property is a wakf property or not and whether the plaintiffs earn any profit out of the property, the suit being a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, the plaintiffs have to pay ad valorem court-fees on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, that is, on the value of the disputed lands under Section 7(v)(a) of the Court-fees Act. The objective standard in the instant case is the value of the disputed lands which is the subject-matter of the suit. The learned Munsif should have, therefore, tried to ascertain the value of the disputed lands and after ascertaining the same should have directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court-fees on the said value, if the value did not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif.

4. In the circumstance, the order of the learned Munsif is set aside and he is directed to hold an enquiry as to the value of the disputed lands upon evidence that may be adduced by the parties and to pass orders or directions in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

5. This Rule is made absolute but there will be no order as to costs.

6. The learned Munsif is, however, directed to expedite the decision on the question of valuation under issue No. 7 as much as possible.

7. Let the records be sent down as quickly as possible.


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