Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Hari Prakash vs Sh. Faqir Chand on 13 January, 2011

                                       1

IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K. SARVARIA, DISTRICT JUDGE­VIII
           DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI


Civil Suit No. 457/10
In the matter of :


Sh. Hari Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath
R/o House No. 406­B,
Heera Lal Chowk, Pana Udyan, 
Narela, Delhi ­ 110040                                          .... Plaintiff 


                                VERSUS 


   1. Sh. Faqir Chand
      S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath
      R/o A­68, Majlish Park,
      Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.


   2. Sh. Sat Prakash
      S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath
      R/o House No. 406­B,
      Heera Lal Chowk, Pana Udyan,
      Narela, Delhi - 110040


   3. Sh. Anand Prakash
      S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath
      R/o 89/5, Choriwali Gali
      Anaj Mandi, Old Faridabad,
      Haryana.

                        Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.
                                            2



     4. Smt. Satya Wati
        D/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand
        R/o House No. 17, F.F. G/A/17,
        Gopal Nagar, Azadpur,
        Delhi - 110033.


     5. Sh. Raju Gupta
        S/o Late Sh. Anand Prakash and
        Smt. Sarbati


     6. Smt. Alka Gupta
        D/o Late Sh. Anand Prakash and
        Smt. Sarbati
        Both r/o H.N. 1140,
        Sector­42­B, Top Floor,
        Chandigarh.                                                 ... Defendants



O R D E R :

­

1. By this order, I shall decide the following preliminary issue framed on 21.12.2010 :­

1. "Whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit?"

2. This issue arose out of suit for partition, possession and Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.

permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants alleging that the father of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 Ld. Sh. Jagan Nath was the absolute owner of the property No. A­68, measuring 180 sq. yards situated at Majlish Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi (in short suit property). The plaintiff has prayed for preliminary and final decree of partition of the suit property and also decree of possession of his 1/6th share in the suit property, besides decree of permanent injunction against the defendant nos. 1 and 3 thereby restraining them from transferring, selling, alienating, parting with possession or creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property.

3. The defendant no.1 filed separate written statement and defendant nos. 2 and 3 filed joint written statement. In addition, an application u/O 7 rule 11 CPC is also filed by the defendant no.1 alleging that this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit.

4. I have heard Ld. counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant no.1 to 3 and have gone through the record and relevant provisions of law and authorities. My findings on the preliminary issue framed are as under :

Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.

5. The plaintiff in para 13 of the plaint has valued his 1/6th share in the suit property at Rs.4,50,000/­, therefore, the valuation as per the plaintiff's own estimation of the whole of the suit property would be Rs.27.00 lacs. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the valuation of the suit should be only confined to the share of the plaintiff i.e. 1/6th share at Rs.4,50,000/­ and not whole of the suit property which is disputed on behalf of defendant no.1. According to the Ld. counsel for defendant no.1, it should be of whole of the suit property. The question is not res integra.

6. I have heard Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and Ld. counsel for defendant nos.1 to 3.

In R.C. Bhardwaj Vs. Ram Parkash Sharma etc. reported in 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter, 218 , the plaintiff had sought partition of the suit property claiming 1/6th share in it. The suit was filed before Sub Judge Ist Class. The defendant raised objection that in a suit for partition the value of the entire property has to be taken for the purposes of jurisdiction and on plaintiff's own showing the value of the property to be partitioned would come to Rs.90,000/­ and the jurisdiction for a suit of the value of Rs.90,000/­ at that time was with the High Court but on relevant days of decision with the District Judge, who might try the suit himself or hand over the same to Additional District Judge, The Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.

trial court upheld this objection and held that jurisdiction to try the suit was with the District Judge as the suit property was valued at Rs. 90,000/­, as per the finding recorded after taking evidence on record. It was ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction.

Further in Ramesh Chand Bhardwaja Vs. Ram Parkash Sharma, AIR 1991, Delhi 280 relied upon on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3, the following observations were made:

"It would, therefore, be seen that so far as value for the purpose of jurisdiction is concerned, for the purpose of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, value of the whole of the property sought to be partitioned, as determined by sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Suits Valuation Act has to be stated. Accordingly, for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the value of the whole of the property should be taken into consideration."

The above observations of Single Bench of our Hon'ble High Court were confirmed by Division Bench of the High Court in R.C. Bhardwaj Vs. Ram Parkash Sharma etc., 1992 R.L.R. 218 Delhi (DB).

In 'Jagdish Pershad and ors. vs. Joti Pershad and ors.' Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.

ILR 1975 Delhi 841, 1975 RLR 203, relied upon by learned counsel for the defendants no.1 to 3, the following observations were made by our Hon'ble High Court :­ "26. I am fortified in the above view from a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case 'Mangal Dass v. Nannihal Singh and others', 1974, P.L.R. 255, in which it was observed that the jurisdictional value of suits for partition of property had to be determined on the value of the whole of the property in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of Chapter 3­C of Punjab High Court Rules and Others, Volume I and provisions of section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act.

27. In this view of the matter cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the jurisdictional value shall be the value of the share of the respondent need not be noted because of the mandatory requirement of rule 8 of Chapter 3­C of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, framed by the High Court under the powers conferred by section 9 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887."

Further in 'Babaji Charan Sahu vs. Netrananda Sahu and others' AIR 1979 Orissa 71 (DB), also relied upon by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 to 3, the following observations were made :­ Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.

" 9. The present suit was one for simple partition and, therefore, the valuation of the entire property was the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. In the plaint, the valuation was put at Rs.12,000/­. On the said valuation, the trial court had no pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the entertainment and disposal of the suit by the trial Court is contrary to law."

7. In view of the above case law, it is crystal clear that the valuation of the whole of the property, partition of which is sought, should be taken into account for determining the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction of the court. The pecuniary jurisdiction of this court is only upto Rs.20.00 lacs, so this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit valuation of which as per own showing of the plaintiff in the plaint is Rs.27.00 lacs. Accordingly, the preliminary issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

8. However, in the light of my aforesaid finding since the preliminary issue is decided on merits, there is no need to pass any separate order u/O 7 rule 11 CPC as there is no need for rejection of the plaint Rather, it should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court.

Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.

Announced in the open court on 13th day of January, 2011 (S. K. SARVARIA) District Judge VIII Rohini Courts, Delhi Hari Prakash vs. Faqir Chand and ors.