KALIDINDI BANGARARAJU Vs. KALIDINDI KASEYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition raises the question how far a Court can substitute its own conclusion in regard to valuation of the suit property for purposes of Court-fee when there is a finding given by the Commissioner appointed by it. The facts leading to the filing of this Revision Petition may be briefly noticed. The plaintiff, Kalidindi Kaseyya, the widow of Suryanarayana Raju, filed O.S. No. 289 of 1958 in the District Munsif's Court, Bhimavaram, for declaration of her title and for possession of the properties from the defendants who claimed to be the reversioners of her deceased husband. The plaintiff valued the property mentioned in ' A' Schedule to the plaint at Rs. 4,000 which is a house on a site to the extent of 14 cents in extent and lies at the extreme western end of Kopalli village. It is also by the side of the village club which is one of the prominent buildings in that village.

(2.) The house in this site is an old tiled one. The defendants, inter alia, contended that this item of property with which the suit is concerned is worth more than Rs. 5,000 and that therefore the District Munsif's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Consequently, issue No.1 viz., " Has this Court no pecuniary jurisdiction, to try this suit ? " was framed. It may incidentally be mentioned that the ' B' Schedule properties are moveables valued at Rs. 499 and that there is no dispute in regard to their valuation. The learned District Munsif proceeded to determine issue No. i treating it as a preliminary one. He appointed Sri A. Pattabhiramaiah, a pleader of 30 years' standing as Commissioner to inspect the suit house and site and to report about its correct market value after taking into consideration the enquiries he may make locally. The Commissioner submitted Exhibit B-1, his report in which he valued the site and the house at Rs. 8,055-10-8. He appended Exhibit B-2, the plan of that property to his report. Objections to this report were thereafter filed by the plaintiffs. The learned District Munsif held on that issue that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. This finding of the District Munsif is now questioned in the present Revision Petition.

(3.) Mr. Srirama Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the contention that the lower Court discarded the report of the Commissioner by re-appraising the evidence considered by the Commissioner though nothing has been made out against the Commissioner that this method of calculation or the way in which the question was determined by the Commissioner was faulty or wrong. He also laid stress on the fact that nothing was said against the Commissioner or anything was found against the inspection of the site the Commissioner caused or with regard to the manner of enquiry which the Commissioner has made. In substance, the contention of the learned counsel is that when a Commissioner is appointed by a Court for inspecting the suit property and finding out its value, ordinarily, the valuation, given by the Commissioner should not be i ejected except for such reasons as would affect the nature of the enquiry made by the Commissioner and consequently the value to be attached to his report.