Shiv Singh vs Jai Singh and Others

Misra, C.J.—This is an application in revision against an order returning to the Plaintiff-Applicant the plaint for presentation to the proper court the suit was for partition of three properties belonging to a joint family consisting of the Plaintiff and the Defendants in which the Plaintiff, Shiv Singh, claimed half share. The properties consisted of four plots of land, a house and cash amounting to Rs. 2,060/- which was in deposit as pre-emption money in a case in which the members of the joint family had appealed against dismissal of their suit by the court of first instance. For the purposes of jurisdiction, the trial court computed the value of the lands, the house and cash and came to the conclusion that the suit was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. The view was upheld by the learned Dist. Judge of Aurangabad in appeal. Dissatisfied with the above order the Plaintiff has come up to this Court in revision u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure.

The sole point which falls for determination is whether the jurisdictional value of the suit was or was not beyond the pecuniary limits of the Munsiff''s jurisdiction which was limited to suits of the value of Rs. 2,000/-. The courts below had found that the market value of the house alone was in the neighbourhood of Rs. 5,000/- and this finding has not been contested before us. The argument which has been advanced is that u/s 4(4)(b) of the Hyderabad Court Fees Act, which relates to suits to enforce a right to a share in any property on the ground that it is a joint family property, the Plaintiff is given the right to value his relief in the plaint and since this right has not been made subject to any special rules for purposes of valuation, the courts below could not insist on fixing the valuation according to market value of the properties involved.

It would seem, however, that in respect of the suits for partition by a co-owner, who has not been excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family, the consensus of opinion is that Clause 6 of Article 17, Sen. 2, Indian Court-Fees Act, applies. See-- Ponnada Mallayya and Another Vs. Ponnada Jagannadhamma and Others, ;-- AIR 1949 97 (Nagpur) ;-- Habibul Razzaq Vs. Shiam Bahadur, --Mt. Hajaran v. Mahomed Shafi AIR 1933 Lah 780 (2) (D). The same principle is enunciated in-- Shankar Maruti Girme Vs. Bhagwant Gunaji Girme, . For the purposes of jurisdiction, however, it is also generally agreed almost in all High Courts that the value of a suit for partition depends on the value of the Plaintiff''s share and that it is the market value of the property that is to be regarded in determining the value of are suit. See--Srinivasa Iyer v. Krishna-swami Iyer AIR 1931 Mad 49 (F).

u/s 4 of the Hyderabad Suits Valuation Act, the High Court is empowered to frame rules laying down the mode of evaluating of suits. But no such rules have been framed in respect of possessory relief in partition cases. In absence thereof, the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction would always be open for decision of the courts in cases where palpably absurd and manifestly unfair value is fixed for; it is obvious'' that the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to value the suit according to his own pleasure and thus virtually choose his own forum. See--Kamta Siroman Prasad Singh v. Gaya Din Pathak AIR 1922 Oudh 249 (2) (G). The decision in--''Wahedunnissa Begum v. Court of Wards 23 DLR 253 (H), cited on behalf of the Applicant has no relevancy to the case before us, in view of the fact that the principles laid down there were stated in relation to Section 4(4)(b) Court-Fees Act. The case - must be confined to the question of evaluation for purposes of court-fees. The point which we have before us for determination, viz., the jurisdictional value of the suit did not arise there.

There is no substance in this application. We dismiss it with costs.