SHANTABAI Vs. KAMLAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in regard to the valuation of the court-fee and for jurisdiction purpose. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession of agricultural land. He has paid the Court-fee stamp of a value equal to twenty times the land revenue. He has valued for the purpose of jurisdiction Rs. 9000/- which, according to him, was the market value of the land. An objection was raised by the defendant stating that the valuation so far as jurisdiction was concerned was not proper. According to the defendant, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be similar to that of the valuation for the purposes of the Court-fee Stamp. The learned Civil Judge, who has entertained this objection, came to be of the view that the proper valuation would be similar to the valuation the plaintiff made for the purposes of the Court-fee stamp. This order of the trial Court therefore is now challenged here.

(2.) THE point, therefore, that arises here for determination is to see whether the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction is twenty times the land revenue as was paid for the Court-fee stamp or is the market value.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the land which is the subject-matter of the suit is held on a permanent settlement exceeding thirty years. Therefore, this suit for possession of such land would fall within the purview of Section 6 (v) (b) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. For the purposes of Court-fee therefore in suits for possession of such lands, a sum equal to twenty times the survey assessment should be the valuation. The plaintiff has done valuation according to this provision and paid the necessary Court-fees. Now, the objection of the defendant is that the plaintiff ought to value the jurisdiction equal to the sum which he valued for the purposes of the Court-fee stamp. The plaintiff has valued it according to the market value of the land. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned advocate for the applicant that the objection was improperly upheld. We will have to look at Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act applicable to our State of Maharashtra. Section 8 is as follows:--