MEHTAB SINGH Vs. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.C. Pandey, J.

(2.) THIS revision is directed by against an order, dated 3.8.95, passed by Civil Judge, Class -II, Patan in C.S. No. 20 -A/95, whereby the trial court has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. on the ground that the suit is under valued and is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court.

(3.) THE trial Court rejected the objection of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 1 was required to value her suit at Rs. 48,000/ - which was the value of the sale -deed, executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. The trial Court has held that it is not necessary for respondent No. 1 to get the sale deed set aside by the decree of the Court for the reason that she has alleged in para -8 of the plaint that she had become major and after death of her husband, she became the owner of the land and the sale -deed was got executed by fraud by respondent No. 2. It appears that the Trial Court has held that the reliefs of declaration and injunction claimed by the respondent No. 1, are two independent reliefs. The relief of injunction is not consequential to the relief of declaration. Therefore, the suit is not governed by, Clause 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. According to the trial Court, so far as declaration is concerned, the respondent No. 1 was bound to pay fixed Court fee of Rs. 30/ - under Section 17 (3) of Schedule - II of the Court Fees Act. The trial Court also held that so far as declaration is concerned, Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act is not applied for the purpose of declaration and, therefore the respondent No. 1 need not value the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction u/s 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The respondent No. 1 was free to value the relief of injunction and she had valued the relief of injunction, at Rs. 300/ -. However, the trial Court has found that the suit land was agricultural land assessed to land revenue at Rs. 2/ - per acre. The trial Court also found that the total land assessed to land revenue was about two acres and, therefore, the maximum valuation would be twenty times the land revenue payable on two acres of land for the purpose of Court fees and also for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Trial Court, however, has not stand in its order how it came to the conclusion that Rs. 80 would be the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in a suit for permanent injunction.