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

1982 Supreme(MP) 615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. K. VIJAYWARGIYA, J.
State of M. P. - Appellant
Versus
Kana - Respondent
C. R. No. 457 of 1980 (I)
Decided on : 30-09-1982

Advocates Appeared:
For the Respondent: R. C. Harbhajanka and C. M. Mehta.

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 14, R. 2 – issue of limitation – requiring evidence – cannot be tried as preliminary issue,

       (2) Court-fees Act, 1870 – S. 7 (iv) – suit relating to agricultural land – twenty times of land revenue valued for purposes of Court fees – valuation proper.

        Short Note

       1. In a suit filed by the non – applicants for declaration of their title to the suit land and for permanent injunction the trial Court tied two issues namely issues about limitation and valuation for purposes of Court fees as preliminary issues. The trial Court held that the suit was within limitation, and the plaintiffs have properly valued the suit. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court the defendant State has submitted this revision.

       2. Held : The issue about limitation is not a pure issue of law but it is an issue of mixed question of law and fact. The trial Court, therefore, was not justified in trying the said issue as preliminary issue. As held by Full Bench of this Court in Ramdayal Umraomal v. Pannalal Jagannathji (1979 JLJ 720). The finding of the trial Court on the issue of limitation is, therefore, set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the issue along with other issues in the suit. As regards the valuation for purposes of Court – fees the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs have properly valued the suit. The plaintiffs have valued the suit at 20 times the amount of land revenue payable for the suit of agricultural land. They have also paid separate Court fees for the declaration and for permanent injunction. In the circumstances the trial Court did not commit any error of law in holding that the valuation made by the plaintiffs was proper and this finding of the trial Court does not require interference. 1979 JLJ 720 (FB) relied on.

       Revision partly allowed.

State of M. P. vs Kana - 1982 Supreme(MP) 615
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