Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sohan Pal vs Mamta on 12 May, 2023

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                              ON THE 12 th OF MAY, 2023
                                           CIVIL REVISION No. 541 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SOHAN PAL S/O CHIRONJI PAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: FARMER SIDDHI VINAYAK RESIDENCY
                          RANIPUR ROAD GOTHANA BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI TULIKA GULATEE - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    MAMTA W/O LATE SUNIL JHOD, AGED ABOUT 26
                                YEARS, SHARDA NAGR GOTHANA BETUL TEH.
                                AND DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    CHETAN S/O LATE SUNIL JHOD, AGED ABOUT 5
                                YE A R S , OCCUPATION: MINOR BY MOTHER
                                MAMTA W/O LATE SUNIL JHOD R/O SHARDA
                                NAGAR, GOTHANA, BETUL TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    PHOOLBANTI BAI W/O LATE SUNIL JHOD, AGED
                                ABOUT   45   YEARS, R/O SHARDA NAGAR,
                                GOTHANA, BETUL TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    DHEERAJ S/O SUNIL JHOD, AGED ABOUT 17
                                YE A R S , OCCUPATION: NATURAL GUARDIAN
                                MOTHER PHOOLBANTI BAI WIDOW LATE SUNIL
                                JHOD R/O SHARDA NAGAR, GOTHANA, BETUL
                                TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    NEERAJ S/O SUNIL JHOD, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: BY PHOOLBANTI BAI WIDOW LATE
                                SUNIL JHOD R/O SHARDA NAGAR, GOTHANA,
                                BETUL TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 5/13/2023
5:51:21 PM
                                                       2
                          (BY SHRI VIKAS MISHRA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1 )

                                Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by petitioner/defendant 1 challenging the order dated 04.08.2022, passed by 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Betul in Civil Suit No. RCS 142-A/2019, whereby defendant 1's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by learned trial Court on the ground that the question of proper valuation and Court fee cannot be decided without recording evidence of the parties.

2. Although, other points have also been dealt by learned trial Court, but the petitioner/defendant 1 is confining his petition only in respect of the under valuation and less payment of Court fees.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant 1 placing reliance on the decision in the case of Premlata Vs. Ajay and others 2012 (2) MPLJ 584 & Motiram and others Vs. Daulat ILR 1938 Nagpur 558 = AIR 1939 Nag 50 (FB) submits that although the plaintiffs have valued the suit for possession but according to Section 7(v)(e) of the Courts Fees Act, the suit for possession in relation to the house property should be valued on the basis of market-value of the house and according to the market-value the plaintiffs are required to pay advalorem Court fees.

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant 1 submits that the plaintiffs have valued the suit for possession of house property at lesser side only for Rs.1,000/-, which being arbitrary the plaintiffs should be directed to amend the valuation as per prevailing guideline issued by the Collector and then to pay advalorem Court fee thereon.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1 submits that petitioner/defendant 1 has no right in the suit property and he being encroacher, the plaintiffs have correctly valued the suit and have paid the requisite Court fees.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of para 5 of the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs have valued the suit for possession of house at Rs.1000/- and have paid Court fee accordingly, but para 2 of the plaint shows that the house in question is having an area 30x50=1500 sq.ft. situated in mauza Khanjanpur, Tahsil and District Betul.

8. As such, in my considered opinion even prima facie the market value of such house cannot be considered as Rs.1,000/-, and the valuation of suit for possession made by plaintiffs appears to be arbitrary.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent 1/plaintiff prays for time to move an application for amendment before trial Court for amending the valuation in respect of possession of the suit property.

10.Prayer being reasonable, is accepted and the plaintiffs are granted permission to move an application for amending the valuation of suit for possession. However, it is clarified that the plaintiffs are not necessarily required to value the relief of possession on the basis of market-value, as per guideline issued by Collector.

11. If such an application is filed by respondents 1-2/plaintiffs, the same shall be decided by learned trial Court in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order dated 04.08.2022.

12. Resultantly, this civil revision is disposed off with the aforesaid Signature Not Verified observations. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE SN Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 5/13/2023 5:51:21 PM