RAM KRISHNA PANDA Vs. NATABAR PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the petitioners in revision directed against an order of the learned Munsif of Kendrapara District Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 98 of 1956, whereby he rejected the defendant-petitioners' application for hearing an issue as to pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

(2.) The plaintiff-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 brought the suit for partition against the defendant-petitioner and defendant-opposite parties Nos. 5 to 7 in the Court of Munsif, Kendrapara. In the suit plaintiff-opposite parties, inter alia, also prayed for declaration of title in respect of a portion of the suit land and for damages. The plaintiffs put the valuation of the suit at Rs. 1,500/- for the purpose of jurisdiction as stated in the plaint. In the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioners they took the defence that the present market value of the properties in dispute will be Rs. 5,000/- and as such the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Before the hearing of the suit the defendant-petitioners filed a petition before the learned Munsif praying to decide the issue on jurisdiction first. The learned Munsif disposed of the application by a short order set out below for convenience of reference :

(3.) The only point for consideration in this revision is whether the learned Munsif should have tried the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit filed before him. Mr. R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners, by reference to several decisions contended that whether or not a suit has been properly valued is a preliminary question which ought to be disposed of before the Court goes to trial. Whether or not the lands under claim had been properly valued is not an issue which ought to be fixed for the trial of the case. The question of valuation is a preliminary question that ought to be disposed of before the case can or ought to go to trial. Though the valuation of the suits for the purpose of jurisdiction is distinct from their valuation for the fiscal purpose of court-fees, still Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887) provides that when in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), Section 7, paras v, vi, ix and x, Clause (d), ad valorem court-fees are payable, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the same. The words "as determinable" in Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887) mean, as determinable by the High Court which has to try the case. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887) seems to indicate that the principle adopted by the legislature for valuing a suit, mentioned in Schedule II, Art. 17 of the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870) which relates to land or an interest in land, is that the value of such a suit for purposes of jurisdiction shall be governed by the value of the land or interest in land. It being nowhere enacted in the Act that where such value is not determined by rules made under Section 3, the value shall be such as the plaintiff chooses to adopt, the value must be (where disputed) determined by judicial decision in the suit, such determination being subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887). The real as well as the court-fee value should be stated on every plaint and memorandum of appeal, and in case of dispute an issue should be raised as to the real value: (Joytara Dassee v. Mohomed Mobaruck, ILR 8 Cal 975; Dayaram Jagjivan v. Gordhandas Dayaram, ILR 31 Bom 73; Bai Meherbai v. Maganchand Motiji, ILR 29 Bom 229).