MOHD SALIM ABDUL SALAM Vs. SABIHA MAQSOOD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal from Order takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, Greater Bombay dated 10th November 2003 in S.C.Suit No.6167 of 2001. By this decision, the Trial Curt has held that the Suit is not properly valued. It has further held that if the Suit was to be properly valued having regard to the prayers contained in the Plaint, the valuation would far exceed amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), for which reason, the City Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit. Having said so, the Trial Court by the same order directed the Registrar to return the plaint to the Plaintiffs, so that the same can be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. To consider the correctness of the view taken by the Trial Court, we shall straight away advert to the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs in the Suit. The same reads thus :

(2.) The Trial Court has rightly noted that having regard to the prayer clause (a) and prayer clause (d), by no stretch of imagination, the valuation of the Suit can be said to be less than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). This is so because the locality in which the suit property is situated and its dimensions, it can be safely held that the valuation of the suit property was more than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as of November 2001, that is the date of the filing of the Suit. Besides, the Trial Court has found that the Plaintiffs were relying on Agreement executed in 1977 in relation to the Suit property which itself discloses the value of the property as Rs.37,000/- (Rupees Thirty-seven Thousand). Considering the inflation rate and the increase in the value of the property since 1977, the value thereof as on 2001, by no standards, would be less than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). This approach of the Trial Court is the correct approach and warrants no interference.

(3.) To get over this position, Counsel for the Appellants would rely on Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 to contend that the Court could have revised the valuation and determined the correct valuation of the Suit only after holding some enquiry. The argument though attractive, overlooks that the assumption drawn by the Trial Court is a reasonable assumption and judicial notice of escalation of property since 1977 in the locality in question ought to be taken by the Court. The valuation of the property in 1977 was Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand). Obviously, in the year 2001, the property would not be less than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), as has been rightly inferred by the Trial Court. Counsel for the Appellants would then rely on the decision of this Court reported in 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 528 in the case of Sai Samrat Security Service and Ors. Ors v. Rizvi Builders & Ors. This decision is of no avail to the Appellants. In that case, the relief claimed in the Plaint was simplicitor injunction. In the present case, however, the relief is one of declaration and injunction. For such a relief, valuation of the property would be relevant which has been rightly reckoned by the Trial Court. Hence, there is no substance in this Appeal. The same is dismissed.