Jabbar Parra vs Ramzan Beg and others

(1) In this case a preliminary issue has been raised that the suit has not been correctly valued for purposes of jurisdiction. It is urged that according

to the plaintiff's own showing in the plaint the jurisdictional value has been assessed by him on the land revenue payable which comes to Rs. 1875

00 but in order to defeat the law lest the plaintiff may have to institute the suit in an inferior court he has also shown the valuation for purposes of

jurisdiction as Rs. 40,000/ the sale price of the disputed property without paying the requisite court fees. The point pleaded in that the suit being

one for possession based on right of prior purchase, it is governed by the relevant rules on the subject and the matter is not to be left to the whim

of the plaintiff.

(2) The following two preliminary issues have, therefore, been framed in the case :

(1) Has the suit been properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction ?

(2) In case issue No. 1 is not proved, has the case been filed in the proper court ?

O. P. D.

(3) The learned counsel for the defendant has vigorously contended that the plaintiff has himself shown the jurisdictional value of the suit as Rs

1S75/ This he has assessed in accordance with the Rules in force relating to the Court Fees Act and the Suits Valuation Act. But in order to defeat

the suit being instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try it he has chosen to institute the suit in this court by showing that the sale price

of the property involved was Rs. 40,000/. It is submitted that this is not warranted by law. It is the notional value fixed by the plaintiff in

accordance with the relevant provisions of the Suit Valuation Act that would determine the jurisdictional value and not the sale price as shown in

the sale deed that would confer jurisdiction on the court: It is, therefore, submitted that the plaint has been wrongly instituted in this court. Under

Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure every suit is to be instituted in the lowest court competent to try it and therefore the plaint needs to be

returned to the plaintiff for presenting it to the proper forum. Reliance is placed on AIR ]?60 Punjab 467 (FB) 83 Punjab Records 1912, III J&K

Law Reports 28 As against this the learned counsel for the plaintiff ha? submitted that because a court cannot grant a pre emption decree for which

possession on payment of a sum of money which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction, therefore, the suit was brought in this court

regardless of the fact that the notional value for purpose of jurisdiction is assessed at Rs. 1875/ only. In order to elucidate the argument further

reliance is placed on order 20 Rule 14 CPC according to which there is to be a direction in the decree for deposit of money in a preemption suit. It

is submitted that this is itself a part of the decree and when the amount is mentioned by virtue of such directions exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction

of the court then it has no power to pass a decree. Because in the instant case the sale price of the property involved has been shown Rs. 40.000/

and if ultimately the court trying the suit comes to the conclusion that the sale was really affected for this amount alone then the High Court only is

competent to pass the decree in the case It was with this object in view that the suit was instituted in this court. Reliance is placed on AIR 3926

Lahore (FB) and 16 Punjab Record 1909 page 73.

(4) Upon consideration of the averments made in clause 6 of the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff has himself assessed Rs. 1875/ as the

jurisdictional value of the suit and this is in accordance with Rule 3 of the Suits Valuation Act and the Rules made there under, read with section 7

paragraph 5 of the Court Fees Act. It is conceded that a preemption suit relating to agricultural land is to be valued on the basis of the land revenue

payable and the method of computation for purpose of jurisdictional value for such like cases is fifty times of the land revenue payable. This is said

to be the notional value and infect this has got no relation to the market price of the property in dispute. In my opinion when the valuation to the

assessment and fixation of value for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction is expressly provided by the Rules, it cannot be said that the suits

governed by the Suit Valuation Act and the Rules made there under can be valued differently for some extraneous reasons. The decree to be

passed in the case has got no relation to the method of assessment of the value for purposes of jurisdiction. Neither Section 8 nor

Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act applies to Preemption suits relating to agricultural land. It is true that when a decree for preemption is passed

under Order 20, the court has to give a direction for paying the money. But it is to be noticed that the decree is essentially drawn on the basis of

preemption and is not a decree for the award of money. The view expressed in AIR 1926 Lahore 376 (FB) that a court cannot grant a decree for

possession of immovable property on payment of a sum of money which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction was considered in AIR

1960 Punjab 467 (FB) and was departed from. It was held in the latter authority that jurisdictional value of a suit relating to preemption in respect

of the agricultural land throughout the litigation remains the same and that direction under O 20 R. 14 of CPC relating to the deposit of the sale

price or the market value of the land in litigation has no relevancy in determining the form of suit or appeal in the preemption suit relating to

agricultural land and the forum is governed by the jurisdictional value fixed under the Suits Valuation Act. The same question came up for

consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Civil Revision No 100 of 2002 Gh. Mohammad Khan Versus Narian Singh and others

reported as III J & K L. R. 28. In this authority the case law on the subject was reviewed and it was held that the power of the court to pass any

decree, it thinks proper, is not fettered if it has jurisdiction to try the suit. The power of the court to pass ultimately a decree in any suit is not

restricted or fettered by section 6 of CPC. That section only imposes restriction with regard to the entertaining of the suit. The matter of the power

of this court ultimately to pass a decree in a suit in which it has jurisdiction is one very much different from the matter of jurisdiction to entertain the

suit. That was also a case of preemption where a decree for preemption was granted on payment of Rs. 2500/ by the Munsiff whose pecuniary

jurisdiction extended only upto Rs. 1000/. It was held that the Munsiff had jurisdiction to pass the decree in such a case when initially he had

jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. I am of the view that the proposition of law enunciated in AIR 1960 Punjab supra (FB) and III J & K

Law Reports is the correct interpretation on the question posed before us and with great respect I differ from the view taken in AIR 1926 Lahore

376 Supra (FB),

(5) In these circumstances I find that the plaintiff ought to have presented this plaint before the court of lowest grade competent to try the suit and

not in this court. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant must therefore prevail.

(6) I would, therefore, direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presenting it before a court of competent jurisdiction.