LAWS(ORI)-1957-4-7

HARIBANDHU MOHANTY Vs. HAREKRISHNA BEHERA

Decided On April 22, 1957
HARIBANDHU MOHANTY Appellant
V/S
Harekrishna Behera Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, defendant in the suit before the First Munsif, Cuttack files this application in revision against the order of the Munsif holding that the valuation Of the suit given by the, plaintiffs and the court -fee paid on the same are correct.

(2.) THE plaintiffs suit as finally appears from the plaint after amendment, is a suit fora declaration of their title and permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from disturbing the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The suit lands are about 7 gunthas in extent. The defendant's contention was that the suit lands were valued at about Rs. 15,000/ - and as such the court -fee paid was not correct, the valuation put by the plaintiff also was not correct and the Court had no Jurisdiction to try the suit. These preliminary contentions of the defendant are the subject -matter of issues Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit which were decided by the learned Munsif in the first instance. The learned Munsif held that the suit being a suit for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction, the Plaintiffs were at liberty to value the reliefs as they pleased and that the valuation in the plaint could not be questioned.

(3.) IN this case, the property in respect of which injunction is prayed for is 7 gunthas. According to the sale deeds filed by the plaintiffs in the Court below, the valuation of similar land in 1939 was equal to the value put by the plaintiffs who valued the relief for injunction at Rs. 300/ -. According to the sale deeds flied by the defendant, the value no doubt increased for similar land at the present time and the learned Munsif also came to the conclusion that the value of the suit lands might be Rs. 3500/ -. But in view of the above facts, I do not think, the value put by the plaintiffs is arbitrary or illogical The suit being a suit for a declaration of title with consequential relief for injunction, the plaintiffs' valuation has to be accepted and that would be the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. Accordingly, I am of opinion thatthe learned Munsif was right in his conclusion.