MITRABHANU BISWAL Vs. KAMAL LOCHAN PUJHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution of India. This arises out of T. S. No. 37 of 1959 for declaration of title and possession. The suit land comprising about 29 acres in Ankumi village of Sambalpur district was valued at Rs. 5100 when the suit was filed. On August 6, 1962, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. On September 12, 1962, the defendants filed an appeal being F. A. No. 51 of 1962. On December 23, 1964 the first appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. On January 25, 1965 the plaintiffs filed the present application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court On August 10, 1966 the leave application came up for hearing. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs-applicants that although the valuation of the suit property was Rs. 5100 but it has now been revalued at not less than Rs. 20,000, Thereupon, this Court sent the matter to the trial court (Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur) for enquiring into the valuation of the property both at the time the suit was filed and also at the time when the leave application was filed. The trial court was directed to submit its report to this Court within three months.

(2.) ON November 12, 1966, the trial court submitted its report. His conclusion on the valuation as stated in paragraph 12 of the report, is this :

(3.) IT has to be kept in view that what is meant by "value of the subject-matter" as contemplated under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution is the real or market value and not any value which may have been stated in the plaint for the requirements of the Court-fees Act or the Suits Valuation Act Each case therefore has to be judged on its own facts so as to find out whether the value of the subject-matter as given in the plaint is the real or market value or is based on consideration quite independent of and without regard to the real or market value. If, on investigation, it is found that the value of the subject-matter, as given in the plaint, it, the real or market value as contemplated in law, the matter ends there and no further enquiry is called for. But in case it is found that the value of the subject-matter as given in the plaint is not the real or market value, an investigation has to be made for determination of the real or market value of the subject-matter both in the Court of first instance, as also in the Court of appeal, unless the case is one where there is a judicial determination of the correctness of the valuation given in the plaint so as to attract the principle of res judicata, or it is a case wherein the petitioner has already obtained an advantage of a lower forum whether In the matter of institution of the suit or of appeal on the basis of a lower valuation and is thereby hit by the principle of approbation and reprobation, nanda Kishore Panigrahi v. Commr. Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, ILR (1965) Cut 623 = (AIR 1966 Orissa 89 ).