JAGDISH PRATAP SINGH Vs. JANAKDULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order dated 16.7.1992 under appeal, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of Civil Judge, Class -II, Satna. The learned Judge in her order has stated that the suit has been valued both for the purposes of jurisdiction and the court -fees on the basis of 20 times of the land revenue payable on the land on the basis of share of the land claimed by the plaintiff (N.A. No. 1). A copy of the plaint has been filed in this appeal. I have perused the prayer clause and the several reliefs claimed in the plaint. The pleadings in the plaint show that admittedly the lands involved in the suit have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government for an irrigation project. The compensation in the sum of Rs. 20, 12,000/ - has been determined as payable to the present defendants. On this fact, the plaintiff claims a relief of declaration, partition and possession to the extent of 1/2 share of the land. In the alternative it is claimed in the suit that she be declared as entitled to 1/20fthe compensation money and an injunction to the effect be issued against the defendants restraining them from obtaining the whole amount of compensation. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants points out that in the Court below they had only raised an objection regarding court -fees. They never objected to the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of the valuation of the suit. Learned Counsel for the appellants points out that on admitted fact, the plaintiff can only be granted a relief, if at all if her share is proved to be half to the extent of her share in the compensation money and that would be a sum of Rs. 10, 06, 000/ -. The suit should have, therefore, been valued both for the purposes of jurisdiction and court -fees in the sum of Rs. 10,06,000/ -. Reliance is placed on 1963 JLJ 674 (Badrilal v. State of M.P. and another).