MANGRU Vs. RAM LAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the Defendant. The suit had been filed for declaration that the Plaintiff had not adopted the Defendant, and he was not his adopted son. The suit was valued at Rs. 500/-. Its valuation was based on the valuation of a house in which the Plaintiff alleged to have half share. The Defendant objected to the valuation of the house disclosed in the plaint and alleged inter alia that its valuation was not less than Rs. 4,000/-. and apart from that the Plaintiff has another house in village Bokta, It was contended on behalf of the Defendant that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the valuation of the property involved in the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

(2.) The trial court directed the Court Amin o value the house at Bokta alleged by the Defendant to belong to the Plaintiff. The Amin valued it at Rs. 10,947. 25 P. The Munsif decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the Plaintiff, on the view that the property owned by the Plaintiff is only the house disclosed in the plaint, and that the report of the Amin was beyond jurisdiction. Valuation of a suit for purposes of determining as to whether it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court is governed by the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the Suits Valuation Rules. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act as amended in U.P. runs as under:

(3.) So far as the present suit is concerned, it is a suit of the type mentioned in Section 7(IV-B)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and Clause (d) of it is to the following effect: