Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kr.Pra vs Rajeshwar Ram & Ors on 4 January, 2010

Author: R. K. Merathia

Bench: R. K. Merathia

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W. P. (C) No. 1080 of 2009
                            ---
           Krishna Kumar @ Kirishna Kumar Prajapati... Petitioner
                                   Versus
           Rajeshwar Ram and others                 ...     ...      Respondents
                                       ---
           CORAM        : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
                              ---
           For the Petitioner     : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate
           For the Respondents    :
                        ---

3. 4.01.2010

: This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5.1.2009 passed by learned Munsif, Hazaribag in Partition Suit No. 61 of 2003, rejecting the petition, filed by petitioners, challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction under Order 14 Rule 2 of the code of Civil Procedure.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this partition suit, the plaintiff has also prayed for declaration of sale-deed as void and illegal and thus in fact it is a title suit and therefore, the advalorem court fees is required to be paid on the valuation of such sale deed which is more than Rs. one Lakh.

It appears that the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2003, in which all the issues framed on 1.5.2007, but at that time no such issue or objection was raised by the defendant/petitioner; and that all the issues will be decided together.

It appears that the prayer in the plaint for declaration of the sale deed as illegal and void is ancillary and consequential relief, which will not make the suit a title suit from partition suit.

In the circumstances, I see no reason for exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this case, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, no costs.

(R. K. Merathia, J.) MK