CHANDRAKANT Vs. TIKAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/ L.Rs. of Defendant No. 1 have filed instant miscellaneous civil appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10-09-12 passed by the Court of District Judge, Burhanpur in Civil Appeal No. 31A/12 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10-04-12 passed in Civil Suit No. 17A/11 by the Court of Ist Civil Judge ClassI, Burhanpur directing the said Court to return the plaint to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. holding that the worth of the disputed property was more than 60 to 70 lacs and as a result it ought to have been the valuation of the suit, hence the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further mentioned here that the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the suit holding that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff had failed to prove his case and as the worth of the disputed property was more than 60 to 70 lacs and the valuation putforth by the plaintiff was not correct and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned appellate Court has committed error in law in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court hereby the suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case on merits. In the said circumstances, the learned appellate Court ought to have considered the entire evidence on record and only the issue of valuation should not have been decided. Learned Counsel further submits that the valuation of the suit putforth by the plaintiff was just and proper according to the relief sought by the plaintiff in Para16 of the plaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court are appropriate as the plaintiff himself has admitted in Para34 of his statement that the worth of the disputed property was about 60 to 70 lacs. On the basis of which the learned trial Court having considered the evidence on record has held in Para12 that the valuation putforth by the plaintiff in Para13 of the plaint was not proper. Learned counsel further pleads that the learned appellate Court also after considering the entire evidence on record has arrived at the conclusion that considering the statement of the plaintiff and worth of the disputed property the valuation putforth by the plaintiff in Para13 of the plaint was not appropriate. The suit should have been valued at Rs. 60 lacs which would have put the suit beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court, because as per section 6 (1)(b) of the Suit Valuation Act the learned Civil Judge ClassI had only jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is valued up to Rs.50,000/when the suit was filed.