VISHNU ATMARAM TENDOLKAR Vs. BALASAHEB ANANT PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this revision petition is the original plaintiff. He has instituted O.S.No.44 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Belgaum claiming several reliefs. In that suit, the learned trial Judge heard Issue No.7 and has ordered that "The present valuation furnished by the plaintiff is not acceptable and the plaintiff must give a new valuation slip valuing each of the declaratory reliefs sought in the plaint separately and also by valuing the relief of injunction separately. The question of valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction will be considered after the new valuation slip is furnishd and deficit court fee is paid by 13-8-1971". It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) Plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8 are stated to be the neighbour-users of the suit lands. The plaintiff has brought the suit for declaration declaring (1) that the kabulayat dated 9-7-1951 passed by Dr. A.J.Patil in favour of the husband of defendant No.6 and the sale deed dated 11-10- 1951 be declared invalid, (2) that the sale deed dated 10-4-1964 passed by defendants Nos.1 to 5 i,n favour of defendant No. 9 be declared invalid, and (3) that defendant No. 6 be permantly restrained by an injunction not to make any transactions (disposing of the suit land) in contravention of the provisions of the B.T. and A. L. Act. The suit valuation is based upon 124 times the assessment, half of which comes to Rs.503-14-6. This is for the purpose of court fee and it is valued at Rs. 40,485 for purpose of jurisdiction An objection was raised by the defendants that the case does not come under S.24(b) of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958. The view taken by the learned trial Judge is that there are three different documents which are executed by defendants at three different periods and between different parties, therefore, as provided under the provisions of S.6 of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff has to separately value each of the reliefs. The learned Judge further came to the conclusion that the nature of injunction sought was not a consequential one and so the case of the plaintiff could not come under S. 24, (b) of the said Act.

(3.) The two relevant provisions which are required to be considered in this revision petition are the provisions of S. 6 and S. 24 of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. An extract of the relevant provisions of these sections is below: