V.V. Jayaram and Others vs M.S. Sikandar Ahamed and Another

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—In this revision petition the legality and validity of the order dated 14-6-2000 passed by the trial Court on Issue No, 1 holding that the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, is questioned by the defendants.

This revision petition was allowed setting aside the order under revision by an order dated 8-7-2002 and answering Issue No. 1 in the affirmative. Consequently, the trial Court was directed to return the plaint for being presented before appropriate court. Before signing the order, it was noticed that Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act was not considered. Hence the matter was got listed "for being spoken to" and the order dated 8-7-2001 was recalled and the matter was listed for hearing.

Mr. Ram Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not considered that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the suit should be valued on the actual market value as provided u/s 50 of the Act for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the relief sought in the suit falls u/s 29 read with 7(2)(d) of the Act for The purpose of payment of Court fee on the plaint. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision reported in Shrinivas Kenheri Kulkarni Vs. Subbappa Mehetru Nidagalkar and Others, wherein it is held that if the suit is in respect of judgment and Decree of possession, the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court tee ought to be made in accordance with Section 7(2) of the Act and the suit for purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction the suit has to be valued on the real market value instead of the its deemed value u/s 7(2) of the Act.

In the instant case, the plaintiff has valued the suit u/s 28 of the Act at Rs. 35,000/- and paid Court fee u/s 7(2)(d) of the Act. But Sec. 28 pertains to suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act. In the instant case, the suit of the plaintiff is not under the said Act. Therefore, the valuation made under S, 28 of the Act is not correct. Acceptance of such valuation by the trial Court is not correct. Hence, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.

Proviso to Section 50 of the Act reads as under :--

"Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 7, the value of land specified in Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the said sub-section shall, for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, be the market value of such land,"

From the above proviso it is clear that for determining the jurisdiction of the Court, the valuation is the real market value of the land, but not the deemed value u/s 7(2) of the Act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case referred to supra. The valuation made by the plaintiff is not in accordance with the above proviso, Hence, the order under revision accepting the valuation requires interference.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside. Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint for being presented before the appropriate Court after paying the deficit Court fee.