Skip to content


Pran Krishna Gharai Vs. Nitya Gopal Maiti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in79Ind.Cas.333
AppellantPran Krishna Gharai
RespondentNitya Gopal Maiti
Cases ReferredUnnoda Persad Roy v. Erskine
Excerpt:
suits valuation act (vii of 1887), section 8 - sale in execution--suit to set aside sale and recover plaintiff's share--valuation--suit beyond court's pecuniary jurisdiction--procedure. - .....in each of the two suits claims only a share in the entire property sold and in each case he has valued the suit and paid court-fees on the basis of the valuation put on his share. an objection was taken by the contesting defendants that the suits ought to have been valued for purposes both of jurisdiction and court-fee at the value of the entire property, the learned munsif accepted that contention and held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. he proceeded, however, to record findings on the other issues and one of his findings was that the suits were not maintainable. the learned judge on appeal, in a judgment which i find rather hard to follow, held that the munsif had jurisdiction to hear the suits. the question which has been argued before us is as to the manner in which.....
Judgment:

Walmsley, J.

1. These appeals are the outcome of a sale of property under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The plaintiff in each of the two suits claims only a share in the entire property sold and in each case he has valued the suit and paid court-fees on the basis of the valuation put on his share. An objection was taken by the contesting defendants that the suits ought to have been valued for purposes both of jurisdiction and court-fee at the value of the entire property, The learned Munsif accepted that contention and held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. He proceeded, however, to record findings on the other issues and one of his findings was that the suits were not maintainable. The learned Judge on appeal, in a judgment which I find rather hard to follow, held that the Munsif had jurisdiction to hear the suits. The question which has been argued before us is as to the manner in which the suits should have been valued. Without going into details, I think the second prayer made in each of the plaints the prayer that an order should be passed directing that the sale held under the Public Demands Recovery Act should be set aside brings the case within the terms of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Unnoda Persad Roy v. Erskine 12 B.L.R. 370 : 21 W.R. 68. What Couch, C.J., said there was this: 'The plaintiff has in fact sued in respect of part only of the cause of action, namely, that which applied only to himself; the cause of action was the sale of the whole, and the suit ought to be framed and valued accordingly.' 1 think, therefore, having regard to the second prayer in each suit, the valuation should have been calculated on the value of the entire property. The plaintiffs themselves valued the property at Rs. 2,800, that is, at a sum beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif in whose Court the plaints were presented. The proper procedure for the Munsif to have followed, on coming to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, was to return the plaints to the plaintiffs with directions to them to present the plaints in the proper Court. I think that the order we shall pass now is to direct that the records be remitted to the first Court for the Munsif presiding over that Court to return the plaint in each of these two suits to the plaintiffs in order that the plaintiffs may present the plaint in a Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We abstain from making any comments on the merits of the cases into which we have not entered. The appellant-defendant is entitled to recover his costs of this Court from the plaintiffs-respondents on contest in suit No. 215 and ex parte in suit No. 221.

Suhrawardy, J.

2. I agree.


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