SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(MP) 101

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, J.
ZENAB BI, SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN - Appellant
Versus
WAJAHAT HUSEN KARAMAT HUSSAIN - Respondents
Second Appeal 49 Of 1956
Decided On : 03/31/1959

Advocates Appeared:
K.A.Chitale, S.D.SANGHI

Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act applies to cases where the over-valuation or under-valuation is due to a wrong classification of the suit.

Headnote:

COURT FEES - SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY FROM TRESPASSER - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES ACT, 1870, SECTION 4 - SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1887, SECTION 11 - C. P. C., 1908, ORDER 20 RULE 9.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of 4/5th share of a house, alleging that she had purchased the house by a registered sale deed and was the exclusive owner of the same; that her husband died on 15-11-1948; that on the death of her husband the defendant came to pay a condolence visit to her; and that he continued to stay in the house and gradually took illegal possession of a portion of the house which, according to her, was to the extent of 4/5th of the house. The plaintiff proceeded to allege that the defendant refused to give up possession of the house and that his possession was that of a trespasser. The suit was instituted in the court of Munsiff, Bhopal, whose pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 1000/ -. The plaintiff valued the portion of the house that was in the occupation of the defendant at Rs. 800/- and accordingly paid ad valorem court-fee on the plaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff had properly valued the portion of the house in the occupation of the defendant at Rs. 800/- and that the suit had been properly valued for purposes of court-fees. The court also held that the decree passed by the trial court was not incapable of execution as the plaintiff had not given sufficient description of the property of which she sought possession. The court further held that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act applied to the case and that the defendant had not shown that any prejudice was caused to him by the disposal of the suit on merits by the learned Munsiff.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had properly valued the portion of the house in the occupation of the defendant for purposes of court-fees? 2. Whether the decree passed by the trial court was incapable of execution as the plaintiff had not given sufficient description of the property of which she sought possession? 3. Whether Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act applied to the case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had properly valued the portion of the house in the occupation of the defendant at Rs. 800/- as she had put the valuation of Rs. 800/- on the portion that was in the occupation of the defendant and paid court-fees accordingly. 2. The court held that the decree passed by the trial court was not incapable of execution as the plaintiff had given sufficient description of the property of which she sought possession. The court observed that there was no uncertainty as to the portion of the house from which the defendant is sought to be evicted. According to the plaintiff the whole of the house belongs to her and the defendant respondent without any right and authority occupied a portion of the house and is refusing to restore possession of the same to the plaintiff. 3. The court held that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act applied to the case as the defendant had not shown that any prejudice was caused to him by the disposal of the suit on merits by the learned Munsiff.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge and directed him to dispose of the appeal preferred by the defendant on merits according to law.

P. V. DIXIT, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant instituted a suit against the respondent for getting possession of 4/5th share of a house situated in Khakrobpura, Bhopal, alleging that she had purchased the house by a registered sale-deed dated 17-4-1926 and was the exclusive owner of the same; that her husband died on 15-11-1948; that on the death of her husband the defendant-respondent came to pay a condolence visit to her; and that he continued to stay in the house and gradually took illegal possession of a portion of the house which, according to her, was to the extent of 4/5th of the house. The plaintiff proceeded to allege that the defendant refused to give up possession of the house and that his possession was that of a trespasser. The suit was instituted in the court of Munsiff. Bhopal, whose pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 1000/ -. The plaintiff valued the portion of the house that was in the occupation of the defendant at Rs. 800/- and accordingly paid ad valorem court-fee on the plaint.

( 2 ) THE defendant resisted the suit contending that he inherited the house from his father and that the plaintiff was the widow of his grandfather and was entitled to only one-eighth share in the house. We also raised the objection that the suit was not properly called lor purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE trial court found that the plaintiff was the sole and exclusive owner of the house and the defendant's possession of a portion of the house was that of a trespasser. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for possession of 4/5th share of the house in the defendant's occupation was decreed. The learned Munsiff also held that the valuation put by the plaintiff on the portion of the house in the defendant's occupation was correct and that the suit had been properly valued for purposes of court-fees. The defendant then appealed to the court of the district judge of Bhopal The learned additional district judge of Bhopal, who heard the appeal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the plaintiff's claim, reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the suit for trial of the question of the valuation of tho suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction and for an enquiry into the description and specification of the property of which the plaintiff sought possession. The learned additional district judge took the view that under Order 20 Rule 9 C. P. C. , it was necessary for the plaintiff to give in the plaint a description of the property which was sufficient to identify the same and that in the absence of such specification and description of the portion of the house which was said to be in the possession of the defendant, the decree passed by the learned Munsiff was incapable of execution; and that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff valuing her claim at Rs. 800/- seemed to be insufficient as her suit being against the trespasser, she was liable to pay court-fee on the market value of the portion of the house which was said to be in the possession of the defendant and that if the market value of this portion exceeded Rs. 1000/- the learned Munsiff would not have any jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Additional District Judge observed that according to the evidence on record it appeared that the market value of the house in question was in the neighbourhood of Rs. 15000/- and that on this basis proper court-fee had not at all been paid on the plaint. ( 4 ) MR. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned additional district judge erred in thinking that the decree was incapable of execution as the plaintiff had not given sufficient description of the property of which she sought possession. It was said that what the plaintiff desired was the possession of all that portion of the house which was in actual occupation of the defendant and as the entire house belonged to the plaintiff it could not be said that there was any uncertainty as to the portion of the house from which t










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top