Karnataka High Court
Rajkumar S/O Manikappa Belure vs Smt.Narsamma W/O Late Lakshman ... on 10 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PEITITION NO.202638/2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
RAJKUMAR
S/O MANIKAPPA BELURE
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE,
R/O TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR 585330.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NARSAMMA
W/O LATE LAKSHMAN SALIWALI
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS
i. SMT. AMBIKA
W/O RAJU DAMA
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O ABDUL FAYAZ DARGA,
POLICE QUARTERS,
BIDAR 585401.
ii. SMT. INDUMATI
W/O KAMLAKAR TIKEKAR
AGE: ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2
R/O SARDAR CHOWK, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
iii. SMT. SUJATA @ BAYAMMA
W/O NARAYAN DAMA
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O RAJESHWAR, TQ. BASAWAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR 585327.
iv. SMT. PRIYANKA
W/O VIVEK HAMILPURKAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O CIB COLONY, BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI 585102.
v. SMT. LATA W/O RAJKUMAR TELEKAR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O CHITTE KHANA, NEAR GOVT. GIRLS JR. COLLEGE,
BIDAR 585401.
2. AMBADAS
S/O LATE LAXMAN SALIWALE
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
3. ANIL
S/O LATE LAXMAN SALIWALE
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O TOWN CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
4. MD. SIDDIQ
S/O MD. OSMAN SAB
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
i. SMT. HALEEMA BEE
W/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
ii. MOHD. RAFEEQ
S/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
3
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
iii. AMEENA BEGUM
D/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
iv. JAHANGEER BEGUM
D/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
v. MOHD. OSMAN SAB
S/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
vi. MOHD. AYYUB
S/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
vii. MAFEEN BEGUM
D/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
viii. MIRAJ BEGUM
D/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD. DIST. BIDAR 585330.
ix. SAHEB BEGUM
D/O LATE MD. SIDDIQ
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
4
R/O BALOBA GALLI, TOWN CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
5. TEJU
S/O DEVALA JADHAV
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NARSAMMA COLONY, KODAMBAL ROAD,
CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
6. SHAMU
S/O TEJU RATHOD
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
i. RUKMABAI
W/O LATE SHAMU RATHOD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
ii. SULABAI
D/O LATE SHAMU RATHOD
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
iii. PANDU
S/O LATE SHAMU RATHOD
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
iv. SHESHA
D/O LATE SHAMU
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
v. NANDU
S/O LATE SHAMU
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
5
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
vi. SUGANDHA
D/O LATE SHAMU
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
vii. SAVITA
D/O LATE SHAMU
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
viii. LAKHAN
S/O LATE SHAMU
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O PATWADA TANDA, POST PATWADA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101.
7. SMT. VANMALA
W/O ANNAVEER JAISHETTY
AGE: ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O VILLAGE DUBALGUNDI, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585331.
8. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O PRABHURAO RANGDAL
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BHAVANI TEMPLE ROAD,
CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
9. ANNEPPA
S/O REVANAPPA DUBALGUNDE
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
10. SMT. SRIDEVI
W/O REVANAPPA DUBALGUNDE
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6
CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
11. SMT. SARUBAI
W/O RAVIKUMAR PAWAR
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O BANASHANKARI COLONY,
CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
12. MALLIKARJUN
S/O TIPPANNA KUMBAR
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDING,
BHASKAR NAGAR, CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
13. GUNDAPPA
S/O MALLIKARJUN KUMBAR
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
14. SANGAMESH
S/O MALLIKARJUN KUMBAR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHITAGUPPA, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585330.
15. PANDARINATH
S/O BHIKKU CHAVAN
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KINNI SARFOS THANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585102.
16. JHANAK
S/O RATNU RATHOD
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HARJI NAIK THANDA, SONTH,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI 585102.
17. KASHINATH
S/O SOMANATH CHAVAN
7
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NARSAMMA LAYOUT, CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
18. BHIKKU
S/O SOMANATH CHAVAN.
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NARSAMMA LAYOUT, CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
19. SHIVARAM
S/O LAXUMAN CHAVAN
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NARSAMMA LAYOUT, CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
20. SHASHIKUMAR
S/O DEEP SING CHAVAN
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O NARSAMMA LAYOUT, CHITAGUPPA,
TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR 585330.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1(i),
1(iii to v), 2, 3 and 4(i), 4(ix) and 7 to 14;
SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.5, 6(i), 17, 19 AND 20
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOs.1(ii), 6(ii TO v, vii AND viii) ARE
SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2018 SERVICE OF NOTICES TO
RESPONDENT NOS.4(ii to viii), 6(vi), 15, 16, 18 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
8
THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2014 PASSED ON PRELIMINARY
ISSUE IN O.S.NO.10/2009 BY THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE
AT HUMNABAD, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.02.2015 IN
M.A.NO.1/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT HUMNABAD WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 11.08.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plaintiff / petitioner has challenged the Order dated 01.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge at Humnabad (henceforth referred to as "the Trial Court") in O.S.No.10/2009 which was confirmed in Appeal by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Humnabad in M.A. No.1/2014 (henceforth referred to as "the Appellate Court") by the Order dated 07.02.2015.
9
2. A suit in O.S.No.10/2009 was filed for declaration and mandatory injunction to demolish the construction put up by the defendant Nos.7, 9, 16 to 20 and for recovery of possession of an area identified in the sketch appended to the plaint. Parties will henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. It was claimed that the plaintiff had purchased 06 acres of land in Sy.No.190/30/B/1 from Maqbool Ahmed in terms of a sale deed 09.01.2006. He claimed that Chitaguppa/Chitguppa bypass road ran through his land and divided it into two pieces. He claimed that the husband of the defendant No.1 had purchased 01 acre 25 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.190/30/B/2 from Syed Mukhtar Ahmed in terms of a sale deed dated 07.11.1996. However, he submitted a tampered sale deed showing that he had purchased 03 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy. No.190/30/B/2 and sought sanction of a layout plan from the Town Municipal Council, Chitguppa, which was granted. The plaintiff claimed that the husband of the defendant 10 No.1 had formed 78 plots by showing a portion of the suit land belonging to the plaintiff. However, based on the aforesaid documents, the defendant No.1 had transferred some plots to the defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 to 14, 15, 19 and
20. Defendant No.15 in turn had executed sale deeds in favour of defendant No.16 and in the joint names of the defendant Nos.17 and 18. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Nos.7 and 9 had encroached portions of suit land marked by letters 'X1' and 'X2' in the sketch annexed to the plaint. Similarly, defendant Nos.16 to 18 had encroached upon an area marked by letters 'X3' in the sketch annexed to the plaint while the defendant Nos.19 and 20 had encroached upon an area marked by letters 'X4' in the plaint sketch. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for a declaration of his title in respect of the extent of land encroached by the defendant Nos.7, 9, 16 to 20 and for consequent mandatory injunction to demolish the construction put up by the said defendants and to recover possession from them and to cancel the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant 11 Nos.5, 7 to 14, 19 and 20 and two sale deeds of even date i.e., 11.02.2002 said to be executed by the defendant No.15 in the name of defendant No.16 and in the joint names of defendant Nos.17 and 18, details of which are mentioned in prayer (e) of the plaint.
4. For the purpose of Court fee, the relief of declaration was valued under Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, (for short, 'the Act of 1958') while the relief of mandatory injunction and recovery of possession was valued each at Rs.1,000/-. For the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiff valued the suit property at a sum of Rs.75,000/- claiming it to be half of the actual market value of the suit property, which formed portion of the Sy. No.190/30/B/1.
5. The suit was contested. The defendants 16 to 20 filed their written statement and contended inter alia that the suit was improperly valued. They claimed that the suit property was not an agricultural land but was developed by putting up construction. They claimed that 12 the market value of the suit property was more than Rs.2,00,00,000/- and that therefore the Trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.
6. Based on the above contentions, the Trial Court framed issues and Additional issues. For the purpose of this case, the two additional issues that were treated as preliminary issues by the Trial Court are as follows:
(i) Whether the defendant Nos.16 to 20 prove that the market value of the suit property is more than one crore as on the date of suit and hence this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit ?
(ii) Whether the defendant Nos.16 to 20 prove that the valuation and Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and correct ?
7. The plaintiff did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.20 was examined as DW.1 and he marked a document as Ex.D1.
8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held both the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant Nos.16 to 20 and returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil 13 Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for presentation before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff filed M.A.No.1/2014. The Appellate Court also confirmed the Order passed by the Trial Court.
9. Being aggrieved by the above, the present writ petition is filed.
10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner submitted that the valuation of the suit should be based on the averments in the plaint and not based on the contentions urged in the written statement. He contended that the suit was in respect of a portion of the land in Sy.No.190/30/B/1 which was assessed to land revenue and therefore, the valuation furnished by the petitioner was just and proper. He claimed that the suit property was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.75,000/- and he was not obliged to include the value of the construction put up by the defendant Nos.16 to 20 as they were put up unauthorisedly by the said defendants. He claimed that the 14 relief of recovery of possession was consequential and therefore, it was not necessary to value the said relief. He contended that the guidance value prescribed by the Government in respect of agricultural land in Chitaguppa was Rs.65,000/- per acre and assuming the suit property measured 02 acres 10 guntas, then the valuation provided before the Court at Rs.75,000/- per Acre is just and proper. He further contended that the Trial Court committed an error in treating the question regarding the valuation as a preliminary issue in the light of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of VENKATESH R. DESAI vs. SMT. PUSHPA HOSMANI AND OTHERS [2019(1) KCCR 1 (FB)].
11. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the answering respondents claimed that the evidence adduced before the Trial Court clearly indicated that the guidance value prescribed by the Government as per Ex.D1 indicated the value of vacant residential site as Rs.60 per square foot, built up area at Rs.500/- per square foot and 15 at Rs.200/- per square foot of commercial open space. He therefore contended that if the valuation of the suit property measuring 02 acres 05 guntas or 02 acres 10 guntas is taken into account, the value of the suit property would be more than Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction was incorrect. He claimed that the suit property was no longer agricultural land but was developed and therefore, it could not be valued as an agricultural land.
12. I have considered the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the plaint and the written statement as well as the issues and additional issues framed by the Trial Court as well as the Order passed by the Trial Court and the Order passed by the Appellate Court.
13. The suit in the present case related to an extent of land measuring 02 acres 05 guntas or 02 acres 10 guntas or more or less shown in the dotted lines in red colour in the sketch appended to the plaint lying within 16 Sy.No.190/30/B/1 measuring 6-00 acres situate at Chitaguppa village, Humnabad Taluk. The suit was valued at a sum of Rs.75,000/- being 50% of the value at Rs.65,000/- per acre. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had pleaded that the defendant Nos.7, 9 and 16 to 20 had constructed buildings in portions of the aforesaid extent of land, identified by letters 'X-1', 'X-2', 'X-3', 'X-4' in the sketch appended to the plaint and sought to annul the sale deeds under which the said defendants purchased the portions. The plaintiff sought for the relief of recovery of the said portions.
14. The Apex Court while considering the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain suits held in NANDITA BOSE vs. RATANLAL NAHATA [AIR 1987 SC 1947] as follows:
"4. xxx The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Courts are well-settled. Ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends upon the reliefs claimed therein and the plaintiff's valuation in his plaint determines the Court in which it can be presented. It is also true that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court by either grossly overvaluing or grossly under-valuing a suit. The 17 Court always has the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law."
15. The Apex Court in KAMALESHWAR KISHORE SINGH vs. PARAS NATH SINGH AND OTHERS [(2002) 1 SCC 304] held as follows:
"8. It is well settled that the court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint the plaintiff has attempted at evading payment of court fee or unless there be a provision of law requiring the plaintiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff. The court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determining the court fees payable on plaint, that the averments made therein by the plaintiff are correct. Yet, an arbitrary valuation of the suit property having no basis at all for such valuation and made so as to evade payment of court fees and fixed for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on some court which it does not have, or depriving the court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have, can also be interfered with by the court. It is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payment of court fee. The defence taken in the written statement may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of court fee by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is ultimately found to have omitted to seek an essential relief which he ought to have prayed for, and without which the relief sought for in the plaint as framed and filed cannot be allowed to him, the plaintiff shall have to suffer the dismissal of the suit. These principles of law were overlooked by the trial court in passing the impugned order which was put in issue before the High Court. We are further of the opinion that 18 though the revision preferred by the plaintiff was directed against the order dated 1-3-1997, the real question arising before the High Court was to find out whether the suit was properly valued and proper court fee was paid thereon in accordance with law. While doing so if the High Court was required to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 17-12-1996 it should not have felt inhibited from doing so. In the facts of the present case we are clearly of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the revision on the ground that the order dated 1-3-1997 was an order correcting a clerical or typing error only."
16. The suit in the instant case is filed before the Civil Judge whose jurisdiction to decide suits is contained in Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and reads as follows:
"17. Jurisdiction of Court of a Civil Judge.-The jurisdiction of a Court of a Civil Judge shall extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not otherwise excluded from the Civil Judge's (Junior Division) jurisdiction, of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed five lakh rupees."
17. The two additional issue Nos.3 and 4 that were framed by the Trial Court were treated as preliminary issues related to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court as well as the Court fee payable. The Trial Court held that since the plaintiff had pleaded that some of the 19 defendants had constructed buildings on portions of the suit property, that portion was not an agricultural land. It also noticed that the plaintiff had sought for declaring the sale deeds under which the defendants (as detailed in prayer (e) to the plaint) had purchased the portions of the suit property as null and void and therefore the amounts mentioned in the sale deeds must be the value of the suit for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also accepted this finding of the Trial Court.
18. The market value for the purposes of determination of Court fee is prescribed under the provisions of the Act of 1958. In so far as an agricultural land is concerned, said Act provides for the determination of its market value under Section 7 and payment of subsidized Court fee which reads as follows:
"7. Determination of market value.- (1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.20
(2) The market-value of land in suits falling under Sections 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be--
(a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Deputy Commissioner's register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled-- twenty-five times the revenue so payable;
(b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled, but not permanently-
twelve and a half times the revenue so payable;
(c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue-fifteen times the net profits, if any, from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint or thirty times the revenue payable on the same extent of similar land in the neighbourhood, whichever is lower;
(d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned or the land is a garden or the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, or is land not falling within the foregoing description--the market value of the land. Explanation.--The word "estate", as used in this Section means any land subject to the payment of 21 revenue, for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which in the absence of such engagement shall have been separately assessed with revenue."
19. The subject matter of the suit is undoubtedly a portion of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.190/30/B/1 of Chitaguppa village, Humnabad Taluk. It is not in dispute that the said land is assessed to land revenue. The case pleaded before the Trial Court is that the owner of the adjacent Sy.No.190/30/B/2 measuring 01 acre 25 guntas had tampered the sale deed wherein it was claimed that he had purchased 03 acres 25 guntas and thereafter got a plan sanctioned to form 78 plots and sold plots identified by letters 'X-1', 'X-2', 'X-3' and 'X-4' in the sketch appended to the plaint to the defendant Nos.7, 9, 16 to 18 and 19 and 20. Therefore, he sought for a declaration of his title and consequent relief of possession by demolishing the houses constructed by defendant Nos.7, 9 and 16 to 20 and also for cancellation of the sale deeds detailed in prayer (e) of the plaint. In so far as the valuation of the 22 suit for the purpose of Court fee is concerned, the plaintiff had valued it under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958. So long as the land in question is assessed to land revenue and not converted for non-agricultural purposes, the same shall be valued under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958. Hence, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee is proper and the findings of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside.
20. In so far as the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is concerned, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 50 of the Act of 1958 which reads as follows:
"50. Suits not otherwise provided for.- (1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 7, the value of land specified in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the said sub-section shall, for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, be the market-value of such land.23
(2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts shall be the market-value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint."
21. The plaintiff claimed that the guidance value prescribed by the Government in respect of an agricultural land in Chitaguppa village was Rs.65,000/- per acre and since the suit property measured 02 acres 10 guntas, the suit property was valued at Rs.75,000/- being half of the market value. The defendants did not place any material to indicate the guidance value of an agricultural land but marked Ex.D1, which indicated the rate per square foot of a vacant residential site, commercial site and built-up area. A conjoint reading of Section 7(2)(a) and Section 50 makes it more than evident that there is no provision in the Act of 1958 providing for the determination of jurisdiction of Courts in respect of agricultural land. Hence, the value of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction and the value for the purpose of Court fee should be the same. Even otherwise, the "market value" 24
should be determined on the revenue payable at such multiples depending on whether the land is assessed to revenue or not. The "market value" cannot be construed as the value that it would fetch between a willing seller and a willing purchaser. Dehors the above, even if the argument of the defendants is accepted, the guidance value of the suit property is fixed at Rs.65,000/- per acre and the suit is for declaration and possession, the market value would not exceed Rs.1,50,000/- and even then the Trial Court was competent to adjudicate the suit. Thus, the valuation as proposed by the plaintiff was liable to be accepted.
Since the plaintiff had also sought for possession of the suit property, the valuation of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction must be Rs.1,50,000/- and even then the Civil Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the suit.
22. The aforesaid finding is based on the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.7, 9, 16 to 20 have constructed houses in a portion of Sy.No.190/30/B/1. 25 However, if it is found after trial that the construction put up by the defendants do not lie within Sy.No.190/30/B/1, then the plaintiff shall be liable to make good the Court fee as provided under Section 38 of the Act of 1958 on the value mentioned in the sale deeds.
23. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Order passed by the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge, Humnabad, in O.S. No.10/2009 and the Order dated 07.02.2015 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad in M.A. No.1/2014 are set aside. The valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction as stated by the plaintiff is accepted.
24. Consequently, the Trial Court is directed to decide the other issues framed in the suit after recording evidence of the parties. Since the suit is filed in the year 2009, the Trial Court shall endeavour to expedite the suit and at any rate it shall be disposed off within one and a half years from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 26 30.11.2021 and co-operate in expediting the suit. The Trial Court is at liberty to fix the date of hearing at its convenience.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma