NIRMALA AND ANOTHER Vs. LAXMI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16.8.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.24-A/2011 by the First Addl. District Judge, Shahdol, rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioners.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition, claiming that she is entitled to 1/9 th share in the suit property which was belonging to one Shri S. Raghvendra Rao, who died on 13.12.1987. It is contended that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is the daughter of said Shri S. Raghvendra Rao and as there were 9 legal representatives of said S. Raghvendra Rao, who died intestate, the respondent No.1/plaintiff was entitled to 1/9 th share in the suit property. The suit is contested by petitioners on various grounds raising the question that there was already a registered settlement deed executed on 16.3.1971 and another unregistered settlement deed on 18.1.1987, according to which the respondent No.1/plaintiff has no share in the property in suit. The preliminary objection is also raised with respect to pecuniary claim and the suit valuation and it is contended that the suit property is valued more than Rs.1 Crore in accordance to the guidelines issued by the Collector of the district, under the relevant Act and, therefore, unless the Court fees is paid in accordance to the said guidelines after properly valuing the suit, the same will not be maintainable. The petitioners have also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit, as it is contended that the same is barred under the provisions aforesaid, on account of non-payment of ad-valorem Court fees. It is contended that admittedly the respondent No.1/plaintiff is not in physical possession of the property and if the possession of the property is claimed, according to the pleadings in the plaint itself, the claim is not properly valued nor the proper Court fees is paid. Accordingly, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The trial Court has rejected this objection of the petitioners by the impugned order. Hence, this revision.

(3.) It is, vehemently, contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the valuation of the property in suit is to be done in accordance to the guidelines issued by the Collector in exercise of his power under the Registration Act. It is contended that the Collector has prescribed the rate on the basis of which the property in suit is to be valued. According to the said guidelines, the valuation of the property in suit would be 1,40,18,000/- and the 9 th share of this would come to Rs.15,68,666/-. The respondent No.1/plaintiff was required to value the suit on the basis of such guidelines and was required to pay the Court fees. Since this has not been done according to learned counsel for petitioners, such a plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. For the purposes of valuation of suit and payment of Court fees, learned counsel for petitioners has put his reliance in the case of Narayan Prasad Vs. Jagdish, 2011 ILR(MP) 792. It is contended that the application submitted by the petitioners was wrongly rejected by the Court below, on the other hand, the plaint of the respondent No.1/plaintiff was liable to be rejected.