KEDARNATH BISWAL Vs. BUDHANATH JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants along with Respondent No. 8 instituted Title Suit No. 92 of 1996 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri for declaration of title over the suit schedule land, confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 (present Respondent No. 1) impleading the other Respondents as proforma Defendants. Plaintiffs specifically pleaded that they are the owner in possession of the suit land, but the Defendant No. 1, who has no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit land is threatening to throw out the Plaintiffs from the suit land and occupy the same. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 were set ex parte, but Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement, pleading, inter alia that the suit property has not been properly valued and that the Trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendant No. 1 also pleaded that he purchased part of the suit plot in 1948 and came into possession of that land as owner thereof. He also claimed that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property openly, uninterruptedly and has otherwise derived title over the same by way of adverse possession. The Trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have right, title, and interest over the suit land, there was family partition in respect of the suit land, the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and the suit has not been undervalued and the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. With such finding the Trial Court decreed the suit declaring the right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs over the suit land and confirming their possession over the same. The Court also permanently injuncted Defendant No. 1 from causing any disturbance in the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. Defendant No. 1 challenged the said Judgment and decree in T.A. No. 2/60 of 2001/1999. The lower Appellate Court on re -assessment of the evidence and the legal provisions held that the suit is undervalued, and that the Trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly, set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and directed for return of the plaint to the Plaintiffs for presentation of the same in the proper Court. That Judgment and decree of the Learned 1st Appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration in this appeal. Whether the ruling of the first Appellate Court that the suit is under -valued and was beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, is legally acceptable 2. Mr. S. Dash, Learned Counsel on behalf of M/s. S.P. Mishra and associates, Counsels for the Appellants stated that the Plaintiffs' suit being one for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession coupled with the prayer for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, the provision of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act was applicable and the Plaintiffs had the option to value their suit according to their choice. He stated that valuation of the suit and payment of Court fees thereon, is a matter between the Plaintiffs and the Court and the Defendants could not have any say in that matter. In support of his contention, he cited the cases of Gopal Chandra Jena v. Sri Sri Laxmi Narayan Bije Maura Alava and Anr. 1989 (II) OLR 409, Nandakishore Nayak and two Ors. v. State of Orissa and two Ors. 2003 (I) OLR 473 and S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Cfcettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, : [1958]1SCR1021 .

(3.) MR . P.K. Satpathy, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned Judgment stated that no doubt the suit for declaration of title with consequential relief is covered under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act and the Plaintiffs have the option to value their suit, but they could not be allowed to place an arbitrary valuation. He stated that in such a suit the valuation put by the Plaintiffs should have some relation with the real market value of the property at the time of institution of the suit. In support of this argument, he relied on the gases of Sridhar Kumar Das @ Dr. S.C. Das @ Srihari Kumar Das v. Satish Ch. Giri and Ors. 56 (1983) CLT, 475, Jhara Padhanuni v. Bhagarathi Padhan and Ors. 1976 ILR, Cuttack, page 707 and Indrajit Behera and Anr. v. Bhaja Meher and Anr. : AIR1969Ori257 .