Skip to content


Kanailal Banerjee Vs. Satyabati Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Cal265
AppellantKanailal Banerjee
RespondentSatyabati Devi and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....standard laid down either by the legislature in the court-fees act or by the high court under the suits valuation act. the objective standard suggested by the petitioner in the present case cannot be applied to the present suit in view of the scope of the present suit and the effect on the partition suit of the decree which will be made in this suit if the plaintiff succeeds ultimately. in this view of the matter, i am unable to accept the valuation suggested by the defendant as the valuation of the relief in the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees. in the absence of any other satisfactory objective standard the plaintiff's valuation must be taken as correct and final for the purpose of the present suit. the rule is accordingly discharged. there will be no order as to.....
Judgment:

Nasim Ali, J.

1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., by the defendant in a suit for rectification of a certain solenama filed in a partition suit between the parties against the order of the Second Court of the Munsif of Howrah dated 16th August 1937 whereby the learned Munsif has rejected the defendant's objection that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees. It is conceded by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the suit in question comes under Section 7, Clause iv(c), Court-fees Act. In the partition suit the properties which were the subject-matter of partition were valued at Rs. 24,000rder A preliminary decree was made in that suit on the basis of a petition of compromise on 29th July 1935. Thereafter the plaintiff opposite party in this rule instituted a suit in the Second Court of the Munsif of Howrah for rectification of the said solenama upon which the preliminary decree was made on the ground of fraud or mutual mistake of the parties. The contention of the defendant petitioner is that the value which the plaintiff opposite party has put upon the relief in this suit is arbitrary and is too low inasmuch as the value given in the plaint of the suit is only Rs. 101 although the plaintiff would be entitled to have her title and joint possession declared in properties worth about Rs. 8000 if the suit be decreed. It appears that in the present suit the plaintiff opposite party wants to have the petition of compromise filed in the partition suit declared invalid on the ground that certain terms were omitted in the petition of compromise either through fraud of the defendant opposite party or through mutual mistake. The substance of the suit therefore is to have the adjustment of the suit by mutual agreement of the parties set aside. If the plaintiff succeeds in the suit the preliminary decree passed on the petition of compromise will be set aside and the parties will be relegated to the position in which they were before the petition of compromise was filed. It is true that if the plaintiff succeeds in the present suit, on the basis of the findings in the suit the plaintiff would be entitled to ask the Court to record the real terms of adjustment under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C., in the partition suit and to pass a preliminary decree on these terms. The relief which the plaintiff would be entitled to get in the partition suit after the preliminary decree passed on the petition of compromise is set aside, cannot be imported into his suit and cannot be taken as having any bearing on the question of the valuation of the relief in the present suit.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner asked us to adopt as the value of the present suit the value of the property which would be affected by the preliminary decree which would be made in the partition suit on the basis of the decision in this suit if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in her suit. The value of the property in my opinion cannot be taken as an objective standard for the purpose of determining the value of the relief in the present suit. It is true that after the recent amendment of the Court-fees Act the Court has power to determine whether the valuation made by the plaintiff in suit under Section 7 (iv)(c) is arbitrary or not. But the difficulty in the exercise of that power is the absence of any objective standard laid down either by the Legislature in the Court-fees Act or by the High Court under the Suits Valuation Act. The objective standard suggested by the petitioner in the present case cannot be applied to the present suit in view of the scope of the present suit and the effect on the partition suit of the decree which will be made in this suit if the plaintiff succeeds ultimately. In this view of the matter, I am unable to accept the valuation suggested by the defendant as the valuation of the relief in the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees. In the absence of any other satisfactory objective standard the plaintiff's valuation must be taken as correct and final for the purpose of the present suit. The rule is accordingly discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down as early as possible.

S.K. Ghose, J.

3. I agree.


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