Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)The Court-fees Act, 1870
Bai Shevantibai vs Janardhan Raghunath Warick on 22 May, 1944
In --'Bai Shevantibai v. Janardhan Raghunath', AIR 1944 PC 65 (D), the assignee of the purchaser from a member of a joint family of a share in the joint family property sued for partition of the family property and to have the share allotted to her. The total value of the joint family property exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. The value of the share which the appellant claimed was about Rs. 3,000/-. It was held by the Judicial Committee that the value of the share of the joint family property in respect of which the appellant was claiming must be taken to be the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council, and further it was held that a question as to the title of the plaintiff to the share which she claimed in the joint family property did not become a question respecting the whole of the joint family estate merely because if her title was established it would result in the joint family estate being partitioned. It is true that in this case the Judicial Committee was considering the value of the subject-matter in appeal under Section 110, Civil P. C., but the principle laid down is of assistance in determining the question at issue in the present case.
Section 7 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Rajani Kanta Bag vs Rajabala Dasi on 2 July, 1924
In support of this view, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in --'Rajani Kanta Bag v. Rajabala Dasi', AIR 1925 Cal 320 (A), in which it was held by the Division Bench of that High Court that in a partition suit it is the entire value of the property which determines jurisdiction and not the share which the plaintiff claims in the property. I am unable, however, to accept the argument of the learned counsel for various reasons.
Ranjit Sahi And Ors. vs Maulvi Qasim And Ors. on 29 January, 1923
On behalf of the appellants learned counsel relied upon --'Ranjit Sahi v. Muhammad Qasim', AIR 1923 Pat 342 (E). But the material facts of that case are different. In that case, there was a suit brought for partition by the plaintiff who was in joint possession of his share and there was no dispute as to the title or share claimed by him. In this state of facts, it was held by the High Court that the value of the whole property sought to be partitioned was the value for purposes of jurisdiction, and not the value of the plaintiff's share alone. The learned Judges recognised, however, that where there was a dispute about the plaintiff's share and the plaintiff sought for an adjudication of his title and for partition after such adjudication it was the value of the plaintiff's share which will determine the jurisdiction of the Court and not the value of the entire property. At page 343 of the report the learned Judge states : "No doubt in considering the question as to whether the appeal in that case lay to the High Court or to the District Court, their Lordships considered the broad question as to the value of suits in partition cases, but to my mind there is a distinction between suits for partition pure and simple, where the plaintiff is in joint possession of his share and there is no dispute as to his title or share, and suits where the plaintiff seeks for an adjudication of his title or extent of share and for partition after such adjudication. In the latter case, it is the value of
the plaintiff's share which will determine the jurisdiction of the Court and not the value of the entire property.
1