SHAKUNTLA BUTANI Vs. POONAM BUTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for partition, permanent injunction, possession and declaration and quantified the valuation of the suit as Rs. 15,200/- and accordingly paid the court fees to the tune of Rs. 790/-. The petitioner/defendant entered appearance and raised objection on the valuation of the suit. An additional objection was taken in the written statement that petitioner has not paid proper court fees and proper valuation was not disclosed to the Court below. The petitioner filed an application by taking that objection regarding valuation under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The trial Court rejected the said objection by order dated 5.3.2008. However, the trial Court framed various issues for determination. Those issues are as under:-

(2.) The learned senior counsel Shri Bharadwaj submits that the trial Court has committed an error in dealing with the merits of the matter. The learned counsel submits that once the Court below came to hold that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it had no occasion to deal with the merits of the matter. The learned counsel submits that on merits the findings are given against the petitioner by the trial Court and, therefore, it causes grave prejudice to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel by placing reliance on section 7(vi-a) and 7(vi)(b) of the Court Fees Act, submits that the valuation of the property is to be seen on the date of presentation of the suit. The learned counsel by placing reliance on a catena of judgments of various Courts submits that the sale deed was executed on 8.4.1987 and 10.7.1998, whereas the suit was filed on 19.5.2007. The learned counsel submits that it is the date of presentation of the suit on which the valuation of the property is to be seen and not the valuation of the property at the time of execution of the aforesaid sale deeds. The learned counsel further submits that after rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the plaintiff/respondent entered the witness box before the Court below and categorically admitted that the valuation of the property at the time of presentation of the suit was about 10-11 lakhs. On two places in paras 32 and 38 of her statement (cross examination) she made the said statement. On the strength of this statement, the learned counsel submits that the Court below had rightly decided issue No. 3 and 5 and held that the Court below had no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter. To elaborate, it is submitted that the valuation of the property is to be seen on the date of presentation of the suit and on account of the statement of plaintiff herself, there is no iota of doubt that the valuation of the property was much above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below. It is admitted before this Court by learned counsel of both the parties that pecuniary jurisdiction of trial Court was upto 50,000/-.