BIHARILAL NATHURAM MALI Vs. HIRALAL BIHARILAL MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Plaintiff is the father of defendants I and 2. Diffident 3 is the wife of defendant 1. Defendant 4 is the wife of defendant 2. Defendants 5 and 6 are the sons of defendant 1 and grand sons of the plaintiff. Defendants 7 and 8 are the sons of defendant 2 and grandsons of the plaintiff. The dispute in this litigation therefore is a purely family dispute.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his management of Survey No. 337/- of Rajpur Deesa and his possession thereof. It is a garden land. For the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 15 0 and instituted it in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Palanpur. So far as Court-fees were concerned he paid a sum of Rs. 30.00. The trial Court felt that the valuation of the suit but the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction was not correct. Therefore the controversy relating to the valuation was argued before the learned trial Judge. He held that the valuation for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction must be the same. According to him since the plaintiff had paid a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 30.00 the valuation of the suit should be Rs. 300.00 for the purposes of Court-fees and that it should be the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. Having recorded this finding he records the further finding that the suit in that view of the matter was not within his jurisdiction and ought to have been had in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Deesa. He therefore return done plant for presentation to the proper Court.

(3.) It is that order which is challenge in by the plaintiff in this appeal.