Delhi District Court
Mrs. Sangeeta Kapoor vs Mr. Jatin Anand on 11 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K. CHAWLA: ADJ-19 (CENTRAL) :
DELHI
Suit No.601/08
Unique Case ID No.02401C1221192008
Mrs. Sangeeta Kapoor
W/o Mr. Ashok Kapoor
R/o 13/169, Geeta Colony,
Delhi -110 031. ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Jatin Anand
S/o Late Sh. Kirpal Singh Anand
R/o H. No. WZ-250A, Ground Floor,
Gali No.6, Shiv Shanker Road,
Om Vihar, Phase-I, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi -110 059.
2. Mr. Vishal Anand
S/o Late Sh. Kirpal Singh Anand
R/o H. No. WZ-250A, Ground Floor,
Gali No.6, Shiv Shanker Road,
Om Vihar, Phase-I, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi -110 059. .....Defendants
ORDER
Vide this order, I proceed to dispose of the application filed by the defendant No.2 U/o 7 R.10/11 CPC read with Sec.8 of the Suit Valuation Act, for return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction, hereinafter referred to as 'the subject application'.
2. Succinctly, the facts relevant for the disposal of 'the Suit No.601/08 Page1/5 subject application' are that the plaintiff has filed suit for partition, possession and recovery of use and occupation charges etc. against the defendants. The plaintiff has valued the suit property to be Rs.27 Lacs approx. and valued her 1/3rd share to be Rs.9 Lacs approx. and thereby, the suit, for the purposes of jurisdiction of this Court for the relief of partition and possession, is valued at Rs.9 Lacs. By 'the subject application' the defendant No.2 has sought return of plaint on the premises that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
3. I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
4. Para-10 of the plaint reads as under :
" That market value of the suit property is approximately Rs.27 lacs and value of plaintiff's 1/3rd share therein is approximately Rs.9 lacs. Thus jurisdictional value of the suit for the relief of partition and possession is Rs.9 lacs. However, since the plaintiff is already in possession of a portion of the suit property fixed court fee of Rs.20 is affixed on the plaint .............................................................. ......................................................................"
As per the abovesaid averments, the value of the whole of the property, sought to be partitioned, is Rs.27 Lacs. Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court is upto Rs.20 Lacs only. Ld. Counsel for Suit No.601/08 Page2/5 the applicant-defendant, placing reliance upon AIR 1991 Del. 280 Ramesh Chand Bhardwaja Vs. Ram Prakash Sharma, has strenuously contended that the value of the whole of the property, sought to be partitioned, is the only factor, which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. In judgment Supra, wherein the plaintiff had asserted 1/6th share in the property, our Hon'ble High Court held as under :
"8. Next argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff has only 1/6th share in the properties and having regard to the value of his share, admittedly the value of the properties, falling to his share, shall be within the jurisdiction of the trial court as according to him the suit has to be valued on the basis of his share only and cannot be determined with respect to the value of the whole property. It is settled principle of law that in a suit for partition of the property, as in the present case, the jurisdictional value has to be determined on the value of the whole of the property in accordance with the provisions of R.8 of Chapter 3-C of Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, framed by the High Court under the powers conferred by the S.9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. In this matter, I am supported by the decision of Prithvi Raj, J. in Jagdish Pershad v. Joti Pershad, 1975 Rajdhani LR 203 wherein it has been held that S.9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (VII of 1887) envisages that when the subject-matter of suits of any class, other than suits mentioned in the Court-fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs V and VI, and paragraph X clause (d), is such that in the opinion of the High Court it does not admit of being Suit No.601/08 Page3/5 satisfactorily valued, the High Court may with the previous sanction of the State Government direct that the suits of that class, shall, for the purposes of Court-fees Act, 1870, and of the Suits Valuation Act and any other enactment for the time being in force; be treated as if their subject-matter were of such value as the High Court thinks fit to specify in that behalf. Pursuant to its aforesaid power the Punjab High Court has framed Rule 8 in Chapter 3-C of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, which are applicable to Delhi, providing for the the value regarding court fee and jurisdiction which a plaintiff is required to state in the plaint in suits for partition of property. 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."
5. In view of specific averments made in para-10 of the plaint, the relevant extract whereof, is quoted earlier and the abovesaid dictum of our own Hon'ble High Court, since the value of the whole of the property, is more than Rs.20 Lacs, it is certainly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on his part has however, placed reliance upon AIR 1962 Bombay 4 Sabastian Antonio Texeria & Ors. Vs. Rodolf Minguel Texeira & Ors.; AIR 1977 Orissa 161 Smt. Nakhyatramali Debi Vs. Chandrasekhar Pattnaik & Ors,; and 2001 Suit No.601/08 Page4/5 (4) ALT 481 Majeti Ravi Vs. Majeti Kameswara Rao & Ors. In view of the abovesaid dictum of our own Hon'ble High Court on the subject in hand, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff to the contrary, is of no avail.
6. In view of the foregoing, the subject application is granted and the plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (A.K. Chawla) on 11th day of August, 2010 Addl. Distt. Judge -19 (Central) Delhi.
Suit No.601/08 Page5/5