Badri Narain Singh vs Gobardhan Prasad Sinha and Others

N.L. Untwalia, J.—When this appeal was taken up for hearing on the 23rd of December, 1960, a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that since the value of the suit, for purposes of jurisdiction, was below Rs. 10,000/- out of which this miscellaneous appeal has arisen, an appeal lay to the lower appellate Court, not to this Court. Mr. P. R. Das combated this position and wanted time to make further submission on this point.

He has made his submission today and he submits that the suit was governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and, therefore, the total value of the suit, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act for purposes of jurisdiction, was Rs. 2,000/-, the value put by the plaintiffs on their reliefs and on which they paid ad valorem court-fee plus a sum of Rs. 8,100/- the value of the entire tenure in respect of which partition was sought after declaration of title and recovery of possession.

In my opinion, the contention is unsound. If it is a suit, which is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, the value of the suit would he Rs. 2,200 only, vide Dukhi Singh v. Harihar Shah (AIR 1921 Pat 78). If it be assumed that it is a suit for partition, pure and simple, then the value of the suit, for purposes of jurisdiction, would be Rs. 8,100/-, the value of the entire tenure, vide, Ranjit Sahi and Others Vs. Maulvi Qasim and Others, . It may well be that the value of Rs. 200/-, the amount claimed by way of raesne profits, can be added to the figure of Rs. 8,100/-, but under no circumstances the value of Rs. 2,000/- put upon the share of the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of title and possession can be added to the figure of Rs. 8,100/-. Looked at from any angle, the value o� the suit, for purposes of jurisdiction, was obviously and clearly below Rs. 10,000/-, and, therefore, the appeal does not lie to this Court. I may also point out that when the first appeal was filed against the decree passed in the suit, the appeal was valued at Rs. 8,100/-.

Further, when the appellant filed his appeal here in this Court, he put the same valuation of Rs. 8,100/- and when an objection was taken by the Stamp Reporter that on that valuation an appeal did not lie to this Court, the value was raised to Rs. 10,300/-. For the reasons stated above, it is clear to me that the preliminary objection must succeed. I, therefore, hold that an appeal does not lie to this Court. Let the memorandum of appeal, therefore, be returned to the appellant to ho presented in proper court. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I would make no order as to costs.