BALGONDA APPANNA PARVATE PATIL Vs. RAMGONDA SHIVGONDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal from an order passed on September 19, 1968, returning his plaint for presentation to the proper Court under the provisions of 0, VII, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the plaintiff overvalued the suit and filed it in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Kolhapur.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff on June 19, 1968, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Kolhapur and was registered as special civil suit No. 52 of 1968. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that on March 28, 1957, defendants Nos. 5 to 9 sold to the plaintiff the suit property consisting of one half part of agricultural land survey No. 205 situated at village Sulkud in Kagal Taluka. He alleged that prior to this sale he was the tenant of the whole of this land measuring 9 acres 37 gunthas and assessed at Rs. 44 -10 -0. According to him, as a result of the sale, he became the owner of half of the said land and the remaining half continued to be in his possession as a tenant of defendants Nos. 5 to 10. Defendants Nos. 9 and 10 are the sons of defendant No. 5 and defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the members of the joint family owning the suit land consisting of defendants Nos. 5 to 10. On June 14, 1968, defendants Nos. 5 to 10 executed a sale -deed of one -half of the land survey No. 205 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 notwithstanding that the plaintiff was in possession thereof as a tenant protected under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The plaintiff, therefore, submitted that the sale in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 was in contravention of the law. He further alleged that relying on the said illegal sale, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were forcibly trying to enter into the suit land and all the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 were forcibly interfering and obstructing the possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed in the suit for a declaration that the transaction entered into by defendants Nos. 5 to 10 with defendants Nos. 1 to 4 was illegal and hence not binding on the plaintiff in any manner. The plaintiff further prayed for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 10 from interfering with or obstructing the possession and enjoyment of the Suit land by the plaintiff.

(3.) IN view of the contention regarding over -valuation, the learned Civil Judge framed issues as to whether the plaintiff had valued the suit properly for the purpose of payment of Court -fee stamp and for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court and also as to whether the suit was maintainable in special jurisdiction of the Court. The issues were tried as preliminary issues, and the learned Civil Judge held that as the plaintiff had not explained the basis on which he had valued the suit and as the principal relief claimed in the suit was concerning the transaction between defendants, which was a sale -deed for a consideration of Rs. 12,000, the plaintiff ought to have paid Court -fee of Rs. 18.75. The learned Civil Judge held that the suit fell within the ambit of Section 6(IV)(d) under which as the suit property was agricultural land, the plaintiff would be liable to pay half of the ad valorem fee which would be payable if the suit was for possession of agricultural land. In other words, the plaintiff would be liable only to pay half the Court -fee which the Civil Judge worked out at Rs. 14 and held that the minimum Court -fee of Rs. 18.75 would be the Court -fee payable by the plaintiff if he had properly valued the suit. The learned Judge further held that under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction would be the same as the value for payment of Court -fees, viz., Rs. 278.50. He also held that even assuming that the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction would be Rs. 6,000, i.e., one -half of the amount of Rs. 12,000, the suit would not be maintainable in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, as the suit property was situated at Sulkud in Kagal Taluka. Hence he ordered that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.