OM PRAKASH Vs. BHAGIRATHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Judge, Beed, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1/1983.

(2.) The only point for decision in this revision application is whether the learned Assistant Judge was right in returning the memo of appeal to the Appellant or presentation to the proper Court. The relevant facts giving rise to this question are that Respondent No.1 Bhagirathibai filed Regular Civil Suit No. 421/1979 against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) for declaration that she is the owner and possessor of the house No. 619 (old No. 487 in Raviwarpeth, Beed, and also the land bearing Gut No. 9 area 31 acres and 20 gunthas having the land revenue at Rs. 87.72 paise situated at village Aher Nimgaon in Beed Tahsil. She also claimed a decree for perpetual injunction against the Defendants restraining them from interfering with her possession ever the suit property mentioned above. In the valuation clause it was mentioned that the suit was valued at Rs. 300/- on which the Court-fees of Rs. 30/- was paid. The market value of the house and the land was not mentioned in the valuation clause.

(3.) The claim for declaration of ownership and injunction falls under clause (iv) (d) of section 6 of the Bombay Court-fees Act and in suits falling under that clause it is necessary to state the amount at which the relief sought to be valued with the reasons thereof. No reasons for the valuation are stated by the plaintiff in the valuation clause.