Janki Sahay and Others vs Lalbehari Lal and Others

Adami, J.—It appears that partition proceedings between the parties were taken before a revenue Court and on the 5th December 1923, the Revenue Officer determined the share of the parties and directed the Batwara to proceed. The value of the entire property, it seems, is about Rs. 12,000.

The opposite party was dissatisfied with the decision of the revenue Court as to the shares to which he was entitled in the shamilat lands in the various tauzis and he instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Aurangabad, praying for a declaration that the shares in the shamilat in the various tauzis were equal between the various parties, and that the order of the Partition Deputy Collector was erroneous. He prayed that an injunction might issue restraining the defendants to that suit from proceeding with the partition. He valued the suit for purposes of Court-fee at Rs. 150. Before the Munsif exception was taken by the present petitioners to the valuation stated in the plaint. The learned Munsif after looking into the value of the tauzis involved in the suit, came to the conclusion that their value was more than Rs. 3,000 and therefore he held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint to be presented to the Subordinate Judge. The opposite party then appealed to the District Judge who held that u/s 7, Sub-section (4), Clause (c) of the Court Fees Act the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Munsif; for it was open to the plaintiff to value the injunction at such value as he pleased. He held that the valuation of Rs. 150 was a reasonable valuation.

Before me it is contended that considering the value of the properties the valuation of Rs. 150 was too small and was an altogether arbitrary valuation, and that on this ground it is open to this Court to interfere.

The question that arises is whether this Court can interfere in the present case. The District Judge had jurisdiction to decide the matter and he has found that the valuation placed on the suit by the plaintiff was a reasonable valuation. If I found that the valuation was altogether arbitrary and unreasonable, I might interfere, but on the finding of the learned District Judge that the valuation was not unreasonable, be having considered the matter, I cannot see that I can interfere in the case at all. The application must be rejected. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.