LAWS(CAL)-1953-7-11

SAROJE MOHAN CHATTERJEE Vs. JIBAN MULL BABU

Decided On July 06, 1953
SAROJE MOHAN CHATTERJEE Appellant
V/S
JIBAN MULL BABU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained by the plaintiffs against an order passed by Mr. D. N. Chakladar, learned Subordinate Judge, Bur-dawn, dated 26-6-1952, requiring the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem fees on the aggregate value of the consideration recited in three kobalas which are sought to be set aside by the plaintiffs.

(2.) Shortly stated, the plaintiffs allege that three kobalas, consideration, whereof respectively amounted to Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 16,000/-and Rs. 21,000/-, were not binding on the J plaintiffs for the reasons stated in the plaint. The prayer (Ka) of the plaint was that according to the statements made in the plaint and the circumstances of the case, the different kobalas in respect of the property described in the schedule to the plaint are invalid, fraudulent, collusive and without consideration and that a declaration be made that they are not binding on the plaintiffs and, if necessary, the same might be set aside. Prayer Kha of the plaint was one for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. In the Court below the contesting defend- . ants 1 to 4 raised a plea that the suit was not properly valued and proper court-fees had not been paid. The case which they made at the trial was that ad valorem court-fees should be paid on the aggregate consideration money recited in the three kobalas. On behalf of defendant 5 the position taken up was that the market value of the properties covered by the three kobalas was Rs. 81,000/- and ad valorem court-fees had to be paid on the said sum.

(3.) The question which was debated before the learned Subordinate Judge related to the effect of the prayer for cancellation of the said kobalas. The learned Subordinate Judge seemed to be of the view that as the plaintiffs were seeking to set aside the three kobalas which recited a consideration of Rs. 52,000/-, the benefit to the plaintiffs could fairly be assessed at Rs. 52,000/- and there was an objective standard of valuation.