V V JAYARAM Vs. M S SIKANDARA AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 S. 7 (2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and 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.

(3.) 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 under S. 50 of the Act for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the relief sought in the suit falls under 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 (1976) 2 Kant L J 202 : (AIR 1977 Kant 78) Shrinivas Konheri Kulkarni v. Subbappa Mahartru Nidagalkar 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 fee ought to be made in accordance with S. 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 under S. 7 (2) of the Act.