Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Raghuvanshi vs Amar Singh on 24 July, 2014
1 Civil Revision No.119/2011
(Amit Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Amar Singh and others)
24/07/2014
Shri D.D. Bansal, Advocate for petitioners.
I.A. No.3782/2011, an application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the petition, is taken up for
consideration.
Respondents though served, but remain
unrepresented.
Upon perusal of the averments made in the application and the submissions advanced, I.A. is allowed.
Accordingly, delay is condoned. I.A. is closed. With the consent of counsel for petitioners, matter is heard finally.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12/1/2011 in civil suit No.17A/2010. Defendants' application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of CPC has been rejected.
Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction for the relief to the effect that the adoption deed dated 7/12/2007 allegedly in favour of defendant no.1 be declared null and void with further declaration that 2/5th of the agricultural land mentioned in the prayer clause 13-A is of plaintiffs' ownership and 2 Civil Revision No.119/2011 (Amit Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Amar Singh and others) relief of permanent injunction.
After filing of written statement, defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the premise that the suit is undervalued by the plaintiffs and deficit court fees is paid with assertion that there is a Pakka house constructed over the suit land and tube-well is installed. Valuation done only on the agricultural land suppressing the aforesaid facts is illegal and unsustainable.
The aforesaid application was replied by plaintiffs denying the contents thereof with assertion that in fact the alleged house is not a Pakka construction, the same is made for agricultural purposes. Declaration is only sought for 2/5th share of the agricultural land and, therefore, the suit is properly valued. With the aforesaid pleadings, it is submitted that the application deserves to be dismissed.
The trial court upon perusal of the application has found that the relief claimed is to the effect that the plaintiffs be declared owner of 2/5th of agricultural land which is an ancestral property. Therefore, the subject matter at issue in the plaint relates to 2/5th share claimed by the plaintiff over the agricultural land and, therefore, 3 Civil Revision No.119/2011 (Amit Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Amar Singh and others) held that valuation done by the plaintiffs was proper.
Law as regards valuation of the suit is well settled. For ready reference, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 S. Ram. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S. Ram. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar (para 15) is referred to:
"15........There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of S.8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees and that is natural enough. The computation of court- fees in suits falling under S.7(iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at whichthe plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court-fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa. Incidentally we may point out that according to the appellant it was really not necessary in the present case to mention Rs.15,00,000 as the 4 Civil Revision No.119/2011 (Amit Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Amar Singh and others) valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction since on plaints filed on the Original Side of the Madras High Court prior to 1953 there was no need to make any jurisdictional valuation."
As such, no illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Arya) Judge Arun*