( 1 ) THIS appeal has been directed against the order dated 15th May, 1971 passed by Sbri R K. Sen, Sub Judge, Delhi whereby the trial court has returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction after having found that the suit is not correctly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and the value of the properties indispute is about Rs. 100,000. 00.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for partition of properties No. l8/16a,16/ia,tilak Nagar, New Delhi and A-12/17,new Market. Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15 and for rendition of accounts on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 constitute a joint Hindu family and the plaintiff has l/6th share in the properties whereas defendants 1 to 5 have l/6th each share in this property.

( 3 ) OUT of the pleadings of the parties, as many as eight issues were framed but issue No 4, which is relevant to determine the point in controversy, is reproduced below:

"4. Whether the suit is not property valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. "

THE evidence was also led on this issue and after appreciation of evidence. the learned trial court has held that that the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as the value of the properties in dispute is about Rs. l,00,000. 00 , as stated above, and hence returned the plaint to the plaintiff.

( 4 ) MR. B. I. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the finding of the trial court that the suit has not properly been valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and the value of the properties is about Rs. l,00,000. 00 , is faclually incorrect. According to him, the evidence produced by the plalntiff should have been relied upon by the learned trial court, mare particularly evidence of Public Witness 14,sbri Narinder Nath Chakarvorty, and the inspection reports. Exts Public Witness 14/1, Public Witness 14/2 and Public Witness 14/3 according to which the value of the properties together should not have been more than Rs. 46,000. 00 According to Mr. Singh, the learned trial court should have relied upon the report of the architect, Public Witness 14, in preference to the report of Shri Madan Lal Mehta. DW 4, and consequently should not have held that the value of the properties is about Rs 1. 00. 000. 00. But, the learned counsel for the appellant has not given any cogent reasons as to why the testimony or DW 4, Shri Madan Lal Mehta should be ignored and the statement of Shri Narinder Chakarvorty, Public Witness 14, should berelied upon. In my opinion, the tessimony of DW 4 has correctly been relied upon by the learned trial court in preference to the testimony of Public Witness 14 because the report of Public Witness 14 has been written in slip shood manner without going into the details and for the reasons stated by the learned trial court. it has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of Public Witness 14 does not inspire confidence On the other hand, the report of DW 4 is more comprehensive and gives more details about the estimate value of the properties and the trial court has rightly relied upon such report and assessed the value of the property accordingly at about Rs. 1. 00,000. 00. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court that the value of the property for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is upheld and I am of the opinion that the trial court has rightly returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 5 ) AT this stage, it may be pointed out that even the learned counsel for the appellant has very faintly assailed the finding of the value of the properties as found by the trial court. Therefore, there does not seem to be any substance in the appeal.

( 6 ) DURING the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant Mr. B. I. Singh further submittted that