LAWS(ALL)-1983-9-52

ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. JAN MOHD

Decided On September 23, 1983
ABDUL GAFOOR AND ORS Appellant
V/S
JAN MOHD AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs Jan Mohammad and seven others, who are arrayed as opposite parties in this revision Under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure filed a suit seeking an injunction restraining the Defendants applicants in this Court, from interfering with their user of a piece of land and from raising any further constructions thereon.

(2.) For purposes of jurisdiction as well as for payment of court fee, the value of the land in dispute was put at Rs. 2200/-. The Court fee was paid on the basis of this valuation. An objection was raised by the Defendant-applicants that the value of the suit land was not less than Rs. 50,000/- so that the suit was not cognizable by the learned Munsif and further that the amount of court fee was deficient. This objection was rejected on the ground that the suit related to relief of injunction claimed by the Plaintiffs in a representative capacity so that the Plaintiffs were free to place the value of their choice upon the suit land in which they were not seeking any proprietory rights. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Mohammad Idris v. Mohammad Habibur Rahman, 1942 AIR(Pat) 79 for this view.

(3.) In the present revision, it has been urged by Sri. D.C. Saxena for the applicants that the Plaintiffs could not be permitted to put any arbitrary value on the land in dispute and that the trial court was in error in not going into the question of the valuation of the suit land, both for the purpose of jurisdiction and for payment of court fee, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law as applicable in this State. He has urged that the market value of the land had to be determined for arriving at a conclusion about the amount of court fee payable thereon as well as for deciding whether the learned Munsif had the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. It has also been urged that the court below misdirected itself in not taking into account the examplars placed by the Defendant-applicants on the record of the case for establishing the market value of the suit land.