MOHAMMED MIRAJUDDIN Vs. ALA IQBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question is raised in this revision petition regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the method of valuing the property within the meaning of Section 7 of the Ksrrnataka Court Fees Act read with Section 24 (a ).

(2.) THE facts urged in this suit are, the suit is filed on the immoveable property involved in the suit was ought to be valued under Section 24, sub-clause (a ). Section 24 (a) reads as follows:

(3.) NOW the immovable property involved in the suit is house on the vacant land. Under Section 7, sub-clause (d) the vacant land which is not agricultural land and which has become urban land has to be valued on the basis of market value of the land. The Trial Court, on the petition made by the plaintiff has appointed the Sub-Registrar of the concerned area as Commissioner and the Sub-Registrar had given the value at Rs. 6,06,000/ -. He has also deducted the depreciation from the main value of rs. 8,16,360/ -. For arriving at that figure, the Sub-Registrar concerned has taken the guideline value fixed by the Government.