Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
M/s Ranka Buildcon Sole Proprietor Firm – Appellant
Versus
Lalludas & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6942/2021
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Mr. Vimal Choudhary with Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nachiketa Pareek, Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Pareek, Advocate, Major R.P. Singh AAG with Mr. Aditya Singh, Ms. Devyani Rathore, AGC Mr. C.V. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct invocation of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 and its implications for the court's jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Court Fees and Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 - [Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India] - [Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961] - [Summary: The court discussed the issues of court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction in the context of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. It highlighted the incorrect invocation of Section 24(e) by the respondents and the need for invoking Section 24A. The court set aside the trial court's decision and directed the return of the civil suit for presentation before the jurisdictional court with adequate court fees.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition against the order passed by the trial court in a civil suit, contesting the issues of court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction. The respondents sought to declare a sale deed null and void, while the petitioner had purchased the property. The trial court decided in favor of the respondents, but the petitioner appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court wrongly concluded that the petitioner could file the suit under Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. It set aside the trial court's decision and directed the return of the civil suit for presentation before the jurisdictional court with adequate court fees.
Issues: The issues revolved around the incorrect invocation of Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 by the respondents and the need for invoking Section 24A, as well as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the incorrect invocation of the relevant section of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 by the respondents, highlighting the need for invoking the correct provision and the implications for the court's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, the trial court's decision was set aside, and the civil suit was directed to be returned to the respondents for presentation before the jurisdictional court with adequate court fees.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are:
-
The main issue concerns the correct application of provisions under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, specifically relating to court fees and jurisdictional competence of the civil court [judgement_act_referred].
-
The court identified that the respondents wrongly invoked Section 24(e) of the Act to value the suit, whereas they should have invoked Section 24A, which pertains to the valuation based on the market value of the property in question [judgement_act_referred].
-
The trial court's decision, which accepted the valuation under Section 24(e), was found to be incorrect. Consequently, the court set aside that decision and directed the suit to be returned for presentation before the appropriate jurisdictional court with the proper court fees [judgement_act_referred].
-
The petitioner argued that the suit was improperly valued to avoid higher court fees and to establish jurisdiction in a lower court, which was deemed valid by the appellate court (!) .
-
The petitioner also contended that the land in question was not owned by the party claiming to be the respondent, citing prior sales and land records to support their bona fide purchase and ownership rights (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the proper course for valuation and jurisdictional determination is governed by the market value of the property, and that the civil judge in the lower court lacked jurisdiction to decide the suit based on incorrect valuation (!) .
-
The appellate court directed that the suit be returned to the respondents for presentation before the proper court with adequate court fees, thereby ensuring adherence to the correct legal and procedural framework (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.
ORDER
1. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India against the order dt. 3.2.2021 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.103/2019 (39/2017) titled as Lallu Das & ors. vs. M/s. Ranka Buildcon & ors whereby the issues No.8 & 9 regarding the court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court were decided in favour of plaintiff/respondents and against the petitioner/defendant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four of the present respondents alongwith four other persons had filed a Public Interest Litigation. The writ petition was registered as D.B. CW (PIL) No.4606/2016 titled as Lallu Das Swami & ors. vs. Chief Secretary Govt. and said writ petition was dismissed in limine vide order dt. 8.8.2016 in which no direction was given for entertaining the civil suit or condonation of delay but four respondents who were petitioner in PIL alongwith two other persons had filed the civil suit for declaring the sale deed dt.11.12.2012 as null and void and restoration of possession of suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dt. 21.2.2018. Petitioner preferred a revision against the said order, High Court vide order dt. 7.2.2020 directed the trial court to frame the issue of court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and decide as a preliminary issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court framed as many as 13 issues on 3.3.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that issue No.8 was related insufficient court fees and issue No.9 was related to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court vide order dt. 3.2.2021 decided both the issues in favour of respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to disputed sale, Mahant Kailash Das had sold 254.17 square meter (304 square yard) land behind children (Baby Park), Museum road, Village Kishanpole, District & Tehsil Jaipur situated in khasra No.326 to 330 to M/s. Vimal Umaravmal Builders Private Limited on 12.6.2008. That sale was not challenged by anyone including respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clearly shows that disputed land property is of Mahant Kailash Das not of Dadu Sampradaye. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that UIT, Jaipur acquired 1 bigha 18 biswa land located in khasra No.350/2, Village Kishanpole and Tehshil Jaipur and said land was in Khatedari of Mahant Kailash Das and award of Rs.23,171/- was credited in favour of Mahant Prahlad Das by land acquisition officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mahant Prahlad Das challenged the said proceedings and during the reference Mahant Prahlad Das was expired and Mahant Kailash Das was brought on record as legal heirs and award was increased to Rs.46,169 with 4% interest and said money was deposited in account of Mahant Kailash Das. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser and he had purchased the disputed land on consideration of Rs.27,29,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit property was also declared as personal property of Mahant Prahlad Das during his life time by Collector (Jagir) Jaipur vide order dt. 13.3.1969. So, Dadu Sampradaye as well as respondents have nothing to do with the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents wanted to cancel the sale deed dt. 11.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents cleverly drafted the petition and deliberately choose to value the suit under Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 in order to avoid court fees and altering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel for the pe
