NIREN NAGPAL Vs. NITIN M NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant/petitioner impugning the order of the trial court dated 14.10.2013 by which the trial court has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant/petitioner. In the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the defendant-petitioner claimed that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction because as per circle rates, the suit property was worth more than Rs.41 crores and consequently, the suit which is valued at Rs.11,36,400/- for declaration alongwith another valuation of Rs.130 for injunction is not correct and the plaint is under valued.

(2.) The subject suit is a suit between two brothers. As per the plaint, plaintiff and defendant who are brothers are said to have purchased six bighas of land i.e 6048 sq. yards by means of a registered sale deed dated 11.3.1983. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that after constructing a boundary wall both the brothers partitioned the land in two portions and constructed two separate residential units which are separately assessed for house-tax in the name of each of the brothers. Respondent-plaintiff claims to be an exclusive owner and in possession of his share. The defendantpetitioner has also constructed his house on which he is being assessed separately for the purpose of house-tax. The subject suit came to be filed because defendant-petitioner was creating hurdles in repairing the property owned by the respondent-plaintiff.

(3.) By an earlier order dated 8.2.2012, the trial court had directed that the respondent-plaintiff must properly value the suit property for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction because the relief of declaration cannot be valued at Rs.200 and court fee of Rs.20 paid inasmuch as, no plausible reason was given by the respondent/plaintiff as per the trial court for valuing the relief which is not merely for declaration simplicitor but there is a consequential relief of injunction.