GANPATSINH KALYANSINH THAKORE Vs. SHANTILAL KALYANSINH THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs revision application against the order of the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra in Regular Civil Suit No. 119 of 1961 ordering the plaintiff to put the correct valuation of the relief sought. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased Chhotalal alias Chhotusinh Kalyansinh and for accounts of the same and for other incidental reliefs. This suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra.

(2.) 2. The plaintiffs stated in the plaint that it was a suit for administration i. e. for ascertaining the property and administration after taking accounts and valued the suit at Rs. 200/for court-fees and pleaders fees and court-fee stamp of Rs. 20 was accordingly affixed. The opponent filed an application Exhibit 41 by which he contended that the suit was wrongly valued and prayed for an inquiry under sec. 8 of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959

(3.) 3. The learned Civil Judge in para 4 of his judgment has observed that Looking to the plaint and the commissioners report Exhibit 11 read with the schedules attached thereto it appears that the deceased left the following properties at the time of his death......... The learned Judge then goes on to mention the properties (1) to (5) and then learned Judge says that it would appear that the properties left by the deceased Chhotusing Kalyansinh is at least worth about Rs. 20000.00. The learned Judge has also observed that if the will propounded by defendant No. 2 in his favour is not proved the plaintiffs would be entitled to get 3/4th share in the property and the valuation of their share is definitely more than Rs. 200 The learned Judge has also observed that is the plaintiffs have nowhere averred in the plaint that the deceased had any debt due from him at the time of his death. On these findings the learned Judge has called upon the plaintiffs to put the correct valuation of the relief sought for as best as they can on the materials available to them in the light of the foregoing within eight days failing which necessary orders shall be passed for the appointment of a commissioner by the Court at the cost of the defendant to determine the correct valuation. The original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said order have come in revision before this Court.