CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Rambahadur and Others vs Banwari Lal

Patna High Court · Decided on 12 July 1929 · Citation: AIR 1929 Patna 642

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rowland, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Court Fees Act, 1870 — Section 7(v), 7(x) · Suits Valuation Act, 1887 — Section 8
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 378 words

Rowland, J.—This is an application by the plaintiff. The suit was for specific performance of a contract entered into by the defendant to sell a certain property to the plaintiff and for delivery of possession of the property and for rendering account.

2.

The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 2,525 stating that Rs. 2,500 was the consideration money of the contract and Rs. 25 was the value placed on the relief in respect of rendering account. The Munsif held ''that the suit should be valued according to the property u/s 7, Sub-clause (v), Court-fees Act. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the suit should be valued at the amount of consideration money u/s 7, Sub-Clause (x), Court-fees Act read with Section 8, Suits Valuation Act.

3.

The Munsif overruling the contention of the plaintiff held that the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction should be the market value of the property and ascertaining that value to be in excess of Rs. 3,000 which is the pecuniary limit of the Munsif''s jurisdiction he returned the plaint for filing in the proper Court. From this an appeal was preferred to the District Judge which has been dismissed. This Court has been moved in revision. It seems that the conditions for the Court''s interference in revision are in no way established.

4.

The District Judge has written a judgment in which he has given due consideration to the arguments placed before him on both sides. He has followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. Gaja Prosad Singh [1911] 14 Cri.L.J. 159 to which I have referred and which I find to be in point. There is no decision of the Patna High Court directly in point, but one Deonandan Prasad Singh v. Janki Singh [1920] 5 Pat. L.J. 314 has been cited at the hearing.

5.

That decision does not deal with any question as to valuation and where it refers to the decision in Madan Mohan Singh v. Gaja Prosad Singh [1911] 14 Cri.L.J. 159 cites that decision with approval. The District Judge was, in my opinion, right in following the decision which he has relied on.

6.

The application is dismissed with costs; hearing-fee two gold mohurs.