IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Madan Lal S/o Sh. Jaichand Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan –Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2467 of 2018
Decided on : 06-12-2022
Jurisdiction - Valuation of Suit - CPC 6, 15, 21(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaratory injunction, permanent injunction, and consequential relief of possession claiming that the suit property was unlawfully recorded as un-cultivable 'Banjar' and 'Gochar' by the State after the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force. The trial court ordered for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for being presented before the competent court due to valuation issues.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court concluded that it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit as the valuation of the suit was too low compared to the actual value of the property. The court ordered for return of the plaint.
Issues: The main issue was the valuation of the suit and whether the trial court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed CPC Sections 6, 15, and 21(2) to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction and the court in which the suit should be instituted. It found that the trial court's decision lacked cogent reasons and did not properly address the valuation issue.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the suit was restored to its original number and remanded back to the trial court to decide the preliminary issue after hearing the parties afresh.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC has been filed against the order dated 18/8/2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Rajgarh Camp Churu, District Churu, whereby, the trial court has ordered for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for being presented before the competent court.
2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory injunction, permanent injunction and consequential relief of possession inter alia claiming that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and formal defendants no. 8 to 17 is situated at Tara Nagar; chain of title since the issue of Patta in the year 1879 was indicated. It was contended that the State after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 recorded the land as un-cultivable 'Banjar' and 'Gochar', which was unathorized. On the said land, part of Delhi-Bikaner road was constructed and part of it was allotted to Government Sanskrit School and for construction of houses for nomads and Goswami Moksh. The boundaries of the remaining land were indicated. It was then alleged that the State by its order dated 7/6/2002 allotted 3 Bigha 4 Biswa land to the defendant no.6, which was mutated in its name on 18/6/2002. Similarly, on 30/12/2005 68 Bigha land was allotted to defendant no. 3, which was mutated on 13/2/2006. It was claimed that the said allotments to Sanskrit School etc. are null and void qua the plaintiff and the formal defendants for which the plaintiff and the said defendants have right to seek declaration, which is the cause of action. Said averments were followed by grounds questioning the validity of the transfers and the steps taken by the plaintiff from time to time including filing of the suit before the Civil Judge, Tara Nagar.
3. With regard to the valuation of the suit, in para 17 it was indicated that as the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs. 27,20,000/-for development of the Sainik Basti on the land, the same is determined as valuation of the suit and is filed with court fee of Rs.1,37,325/-and for permanent injunction the suit was valued at Rs.400/- and court fee of Rs.30/- was paid on the same.
4. The plaintiff sought the following reliefs in the plaint:
¼d½ fd ?kks"k.kk bl vk'k; dh tkjh dh tkos fd oknxzLr Hkwfeoknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 8 ls 17 ds iwoZt Jh Hkwjkyky }kjk lEor~ 1968 vFkkZr~ lu~ 1911 esa lizfrQy Ø; dh x;h Hkwfe gksus ls rFkk 'kgjh {ks= dh Hkwfe gksus ls izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 6 }kjk mDr Hkwfe dks viuh catM+ Hkwfe esa 'kkfey djus rFkk mDr Hkwfe esa izos'k dj leryhdj.k djus rFkk fdlh Hkh O;fDr ;k leqnk; dks vkcafVr djus gsrq dh xbZ o dh tk jgh leLr o fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dk;Zokgh oknh ,oa vkSipkfjd izfroknh la[;k 8 ls 17 ds fof/kd vf/kdkjksa ,oa lEifrd vf/kdkjksa ds izfr voS/k o 'kwU; gS rFkk vikLr o fujLr fd;s tkosaA
d¼d½ & fd ?kks"k.kk dh tkos dh jkT; ljdkj }kjk uxjikfydk rkjkuxj ds i{k esa 68 fc?kk Hkqfe dk vkcaVu vkns'k Øekad 12¼2½¼62½ jktLo fnukad 20-12-2005 o vkcaVu vkns'k dh ikyuk esa rglhynkj jktLo rkjkuxj }kjk ukekUrj.k ntZ djkus dk ikfjr vkns'k Øekad 83 fnukad 13-2-2006] o jkT; ljdkj }kjk izfroknh la[;k 6 ds i{k esa 3 fc?kk 4 fcLok Hkwfe dk vkcaVu vkns'k Øekad i012¼2½¼22½jktLo@2002@2656 fnukad 7-6-2002 o vkcaVu vkns'k dh ikyuk esa rglhynkj jktLo rkjkuxj }kjk ukekUrj.k ntZ djkus dk ikfjr vkns'k Øekad@jktLo@2002@906 fnukad 11-6-2002 dks vd`r o voS/k o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA
¼[k½ fd oknh ds i{k esa o izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 7 ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl vk'k; dh tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 7 mDr Hkwfe esa izos'k djus] fdlh izdkj dk lq/kkj ;k fodkl djus rFkk fdlh Hkh O;fDr ;k leqnk; dks mDr Hkwfe dk dksbZ Hkw&Hkkx vkoafVr djus ls rFkk mDr Hkwfe esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu ;k ifjo/kZu djus ls rFkk mDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr fdlh Hkh nLrkost dk iath;u djokus ;k djus ls fuf"k) jgsaA
¼x½ fd izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 7 dks mDr Hkwfe ij ls okn izLrqr djus o fopkj.k ds nkSjku fdlh izdkj dk fodkl djus rFk
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper valuation of the suit and the court's pecuniary jurisdiction as per CPC Sections 6, 15, and 21(2).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the rules of procedure and jurisdiction, particularly in relation to the pecuniary jurisdiction and the court in whic....
Interim Application - Contract for sale - Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be same in certain suits - When there is a reasonable doubt with respect to quantum of court fees, the benefit mu....
Point of Law : Objection as to local jurisdiction of a court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case.
A civil court can determine matters of title and possession despite pending revenue proceedings; evidence must substantiate claims of prior possession.
The valuation of a suit is determined by the nature of the relief claimed, not solely by the market value of the property involved.
The court established that the valuation of a suit must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, and that any attempt to manipulate the valuation to gain ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.