The valuation of a suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee is to be determined based on the market value of the disputed property on the date of presentation of the plaint, excluding the value of structures raised during the pendency of the suit.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) ORIGINAL Suit No. 456 of 1980 was filed by one Drikpal Singh (Plaintiff-Respondent No. 2) against Smt. Lalti, Ram Jiawan-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the present petition) and Ram Gopal, Madan Gopal, Ashok Kumar, defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (present petitioners) in the Court of Munsif, Fatehpur seeking decree for cancellation of sale deed dated 16-10-80, damages for demolishing plaintiffs house decree for possession against defendants along with cost of the suit and other ancillary reliefs. In the plaint (Annexure 7 to the petition) plaintiff asserted that he had become owner of the property under compromise decree filed in another suit No. 353 of 1978 (para 12 of the plaint ). Defendant No. 1, who was originally allowed to occupy property in question as licensee, became dishonest and with intention to inflict harm to the plaintiff maliciously executed fictitious sale deed dated 16-10-1980 in favour of the defendant No. 2, who had full knowledge of the aforementioned comprise decree in original suit No. 353 of 1978 and title of the plaintiff. It is contended that disputed sale deed was executed in collusion with defendant No. 2 in order to cause damages to the plaintiff. By amendment in the plaint it is further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit. Defendant No. 2 had executed another sale deed 23-2-82, in favour of defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Plaintiff indicated valuation of the suit and paid Court fee accordingly. Defendant appeared and a issue was framed regarding correction of valuation of the suit. A Commissioners report was invited. Trial Court means of judgment and order dated 23-1-84 (Annexure 2 to the petition) decided issue, being Issue No. 10. Trial Court held that valuation of the suit ought to be Rs. 20,000 and plaintiff was directed to amend the suit.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 15 of 1984 (Drikpal Singh v. Smt. Lalti and others) and said revision was allowed by learned VI Additional District Judge, Fetehpur vide judgment and order dated 9-11-1984 (Annexure 3 to the petition ). Learned Additional District Judge considered the matter at length and has given its reasoning for coming to the conclusion that valuation adopted by trial Court was not justified. It has accordingly set aside trial Court. Judgment and order dated 23-1-84 (Annexure 2 to petition) and it sent the case back to the trial Court directing it to decide the question of valuation and Court-fee i. e. Issue No. 10, afresh keeping in mind the observation made in judgment and order dated 9-11-94.

( 4 ) REVISIONAL Court, thus, directed the trial Court to adjudicate the question of valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee to be determined on the basis of market value of the disputed property on the date of presentation of the plaint and thereby directed the trial Court not to take into account the valuation of that property which included structure which were raised during the pendency of the suit.

( 5 ) AN interim order dated 19/12/1984 was passed when writ petition was filed and as a consequence whereof proceedings in Original Suit No. 546 of 1980 pending in the Court of Munsif were stayed. This order was extended from time to time. Interim order was extended on some occasion. Finally it lapsed. The stay vacate application filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 was decided as being infructuous, which reads thus :-"taken up in revised list. None responds for the petitioners. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents prays for vacation of the interim order dated 19-12-1984. That interim order appears to have been extended by order dated 13-9-1996 till 9-10-1996. Thereafter the effect and operation of this order has not been extended and it had come to an end on 9-10-96. Therefore, the application for vacation of the interim stay order has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. "