N. D. VENKATESH, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 20 2-1978 of the District judge, Bijapur, in M. A. No. 4 of 1978 on his file The 1st respondent herein was the appellant in the court below and the petitioner was the 1st respondent. That appeal had been preferred against an order passed bv the Civil judge, Bijapur, in O. S. No. 44 of 1977 appointing a receiver to the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner herem is the plaintiff in the said suit his suit is for partition and sop note possession of his share in the plaint schedule properties.

( 2 ) IN the miscellaneus appeal before the District Judge the plaintiff, who was the respondent therein raised) an objection as to the competency of that court to entertain that miscellaneous appeal. According to him the appeal ought to have been preferred in the high Court for the reason that the value of the subject matter of the suit exceeded Rs. 20,0000. The learned district Judge, who went into this matter has held that the suit had to be valued both for the purpose of court- fee and jurisdiction at 12-1/2 times the revenue assessment payable in respect of assessed agricultural lands and if thus valued the value of the subject- matter of the suit did not exceed his pecuniary jurisdiction. Taking this view of the matter he overruled the objections raised by this petitioner.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of the district Judge on this question was contrary to law and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) UNDER S. 10 of the Karnataka civil Courts Act, 1964, where the value on amount of the orieinal suit or proeeding is less than Rs. 20,000 appeal lies to the Distriet Judge, and in all other cases to the High Court.

( 5 ) THE question is as to what was the value of the subject-matter of the original suit-O. S. No. 44/77 ? S. 50 of the Karnataka Court-fees and suits Valuation Act, 1958 (the Act.), which provides as to how suits for purposes of determining the jurisdiction and for payment of court-fee have to be valued reads as follows:50. Suits not otherwise provided for- (1) Tn a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this act or in any other law, value for that and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same: provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of S. 7, the value of land specified in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the said sub-section shall for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of courts, be the market value of such land. (2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value, such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint"the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 50 is relevant for our purpose. It provides that even though for payment of court fee the market value in respect of suits falling under sub-section (2) of S. 35, as in this case, and other sections referred to in sub-sec. (2) of s. 7 is required to be determined as provided in S. 7 (2), for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of courts the valuation shall be on the basis of the market value of the lands. As to how such market value has to be reckoned or determined is stated in S. 7 (1) and that has to bp the market value of the property prevailing on the date of the presentation of the plaint. From this is clear, as observed in Shnnivas Konheri v Subbappa mahatru (1) that separate valuation for purpose of court fee and valuation is permissible in case of suits falling within the purview of section 7 (2) of the Act. In this view of the matter we have to see as to what was the market value of the property, according to the plaintiff, at the time he presented the plaint. He has furnished the details of the same in the valuation s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document