Delhi District Court
Shri Satya Narain vs Sh. Rampat (Deceased) Through L.R on 3 November, 2010
1 392/10
IN THE COURT OF Sh. S.K. SARVARIA DISTRICT JUDGE VIII :
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS NO. 392/10
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Shri Satya Narain
2. Sh. Narain Singh,
Both S/o Late Sh. Suraj Mal,
R/o Village & Post Office,
Iradat Nagar @ Naya Bans,
New Delhi 110082 ...Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Sh. Rampat (Deceased) Through L.R
(i) Smt. Raj Dulari @ Pato (widow)
(ii) Sh. Dharam Pal
(iii) Sh. Raj Pal
(iv) Sh. Sat Pal
(v) Sh. Karan Singh
(vi) Sh. Mahi Pal
All resident of village and post office, Naya Bans,
Delhi 110082
(vii)Smt. Raj Bala (daughters)
W/o Sh. Ram Dutt
(viii) Smt. Kanta
W/o Sh. Shyam Dutt
Both R/o V & P.O. Kaloi, Distt.
Rohtak, Haryana
2 392/10
(Impleaded vide Order dated 10.08.2010)
S/o Late Sh. Harphool Singh
2. Dharamvir Singh
3. Ramesh Kumar
Both S/o Late Sh. Prahlad Singh
4. Manish
5. Vikas,
Both S/o Late Sh. Suresh Kumar,
All R/o Village & Post Office,
Iradat Nagar @ Naya Bans,
New Delhi
6. Shakuntla,
W/o Sh. Hari Om,
R/o Road Ke Par Wali Colony,
V.P.O Naya Bans,
Delhi 82 .......... Defendants
O R D E R:
This suit for partition, recovery of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant with regard to residential plot bearing khasra No. 257, measuring 1 bigha 0 biswa having Khata Khatauni No. 141/137 situated in the extended Lal Dora of Village Iradat Nagar area, Naya Bans, New Delhi - 110082 ( in short 'suit property').
The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement with one of the preliminary objection that this court has no pecuniary 3 392/10 jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
On 01.10.2010 following preliminary issue was framed:
1) Whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit?
I have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the authority R.C. Bhardwaj Vs. Ram Parkash Sharma etc. reported in 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter, 218 in which the plaintiff had sought th partition of the suit property claiming 1/6 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 earlier in the High Court but on relevant days with the District Judge, who might try the suit himself or hand over the same to Additional District Judge, The 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 4 392/10 returned for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction.
The plaintiff has filed appeal before Hon'ble High court and the High Court declined to interfere with the order of Ld. Single Judge of Ld. Trial court. Reliance is further placed on Ramesh Chand Bhardwaja Vs. Ram Parkash Sharma, AIR 1991, Delhi 280 wherein 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 the present case as per application dated 02.04.09 u/s 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff for exemption from filing court fee, it is stated that the circle rate with regard to suit land is Rs.5770/ per sq. rd yards and property of 1 bigha values at Rs.58 lacs and 1/3 share 5 392/10 calculated is about 19,50,000/.
In view of above citations cited in R.C. Bhardwaj and Ramesh Chand Bhardwaja's case (supra) the suit has to be valued with regard to whole of the suit property which according to own admission of the plaintiff is worth Rs.58 lacs. Therefore, this court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
The preliminary issue No. 1 is decided accordingly and plaint is required to be returned to the plaintiff for which the plaintiff may move appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 10A CPC by the next date of hearing. The order be sent to the server (www delhidistrictcourts.nic.in).
Announced in the open (S.K. SARVARIA )
Court on 03.11.2010 DISTRICT JUDGE VII,
ROHINI COURTS:
DELHI
6 392/10
CS No. 392/10
Satya Narayan Vs. Rampat & Ors.
03.11.2010
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Arguments on the preliminary issue heard.
Vide separate order of even date the preliminary issue is decided .
The plaintiff to move application under order 7 rule 10A CPC.
Put up for further proceedings on 15.11.2010.
(S.K. SARVARIA) DISTRICT JUDGEVIII ROHINI COURTS/03.11.2010