Civil Revision No. 2285 of 2006. Case: Smt. Ratna Kumari Vs Sushila Devi and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)

Case NumberCivil Revision No. 2285 of 2006
CounselFor Appellant: Madhuresh Prasad, Subhash Chandra Mishra, Awadhesh Kr. Singh, Amitabh Bhardwaj and Ravi Verma, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Kamal Kishore Mishra, Advs.
JudgesJyoti Saran, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 11(b); Sections 115, 15; Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7, 7 (v), 7(iv), 7(iv)(c), 7(v), 7(v)(e); Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - Section 8
Judgement DateNovember 08, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Patna (India)


Jyoti Sharan, J.

  1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Samastipur in Title Suit No. 9 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the objection raised by the defendant-petitioner in his application dated 31.8.2006 questioning the valuation set up by the plaintiffs-opposite parties which according to the petitioner, was grossly undervalued and was set up only for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties seeking a declaration of his title over the suit property mentioned in Schedule-Ill of the plaint, confirmation of possession and for restoration thereof in case the plaintiff were found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit proceedings. A prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant-petitioner from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-opposite parties over the suit property, was also made.

  2. The suit was valued at Rs. 29,900/- and Court fee was paid thereon together with the separate fee in relation to the relief for injunction.

  3. The defendant-petitioner appeared upon service of summons and raised objections on the issue of suit valuation as also on the issue of jurisdiction.

  4. The suit property is a land admeasuring 1 katha and 3 dhurs consisting of a house and shop. According to the defendant-petitioner, the Government valuation of the land in the area where the suit property is situated, is Rs. 3,75,000/- per katha. The defendant-petitioner had also enclosed a sale deed dated 4.3.2005 in respect of a piece of land admeasuring 6 dhurs, which was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,000/- to support his contention that the suit was undervalued.

  5. It is the contention of the defendant-petitioner that the suit property admeasuring 1 katha 3 dhurs having a double storied house, is worth more than Rs. 20 lacs and yet a valuation of Rs. 29,900/- has been given by the plaintiffs-opposite parties by way of suit valuation. The defendant-petitioner contended that in view of the documentary evidence, the matter in issue was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. The objection having been contested and rejected hence the present application.

  6. Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiffs-opposite parties have deliberately and consciously undervalued his suit for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction in a Court which otherwise the Court did not possess. It was submitted that after the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts under the amendment introduced in the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division has been enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- whereas the Subordinate Judge has been conferred with unlimited jurisdiction to try the suits of all valuation. It is submitted that merely to avoid the Court of Subordinate Judge, the valuation has been set up at Rs. 29,900/- which is without any basis. It is contended that the documentary evidence in the form of Government Notification as well as the sale deeds which were produced by the defendant-petitioner in support of his objection, amply proved that the suit had been grossly undervalued. It was contended that the order passed by the learned Court below suffers from material irregularity inasmuch as the issue raised by the defendant-petitioner has neither been considered nor rejected by a reasoned order. It is stated that as the valuation set up by the plaintiffs-opposite parties goes to the very root of jurisdiction, hence it has material relevance and ought to have been considered in the backdrop of the documentary evidence. Learned counsel while admitting that the issue of Court fee is an issue between the plaintiffs and the State, submits that even in such circumstance a plaintiff has not been given an absolute right to place any valuation whatsoever and if he does so and undervalues his suit, the Court should intervene in such matters particularly where it goes...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT