ARVIND KUMAR SAHU Vs. USHAKIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19.1.195, passed by District judge, Panna, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 2/92, confirming the order dated 13.12.91 passed by Civil Judge Class -II, Panna, in C.S. No. 174 -A of 1991, returning the plaint to the plaintiff/applicant for presentation to the proper Court.

(2.) THE applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of Khasra Nos. 134/3, 139/2, 140/2 and 141/2, area 2.517 hectares, situate in village Sunaihara, Tahsil and District Panna, against the non -applicants. It was alleged by the applicant that on 17.9.84, there was an agreement between the applicant and the previous owner Smt. Shimladevi that the suit land shall be sold for Rs. 18,000/ - to the applicant. The applicant, out of Rs. 18,000/ - paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards the sale price and, thereafter, the said Shimladevi placed the applicant in possession of the suit land. It was agreed between the parties that the balance of Rs. 8000/ - shall be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The applicant could not get the sale deed registered from Shimladevi during her lifetime owing to her ill -health. She expired on 1.7.87 and, thereafter, her sons, the non -applicants No.1 to 5 declined to execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant, after receiving Rs. 8,000/ -, the balance amount of sale price of the suit land. On the other hand, they sold the suit land, by a registered sale deed dated 13.10.88 to the non -applicant Nos. 6 to 8. In view of the aforesaid sale deed in favour of the non -applicants No. 6 to 8, they were trying to dispossess the applicant from the suit land and, therefore, the applicant was compelled to file the suit for permanent injunction restrarning the non -applicants from interfering with his possession over the suit land. It was also claimed that after the agreement between the applicant and Smt. Shimladevi, the applicant, who was in possession of the suit land, invested Rs. 30,000/ - on the suit land for agricultural purposes.

(3.) IN reply, the applicant submitted that this is a suit for permanent injunction and it related to agricultural land, which are assessed to land revenue as such and for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdictivn the value of the suit land would be 20 times of the land revenue. Accordingly, the suit was rightly valued at Rs. 300/ -.