SHIOGOBINDA TRIBEDI Vs. SURJYAB ALI TRIBEDI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant to the revision petition filed by the defendant Shiogobinda Tribedi under para 34 of the Tripura (Courts) Order, 1950, hereinafter called the order, can be set out in a few words. The plaintiff Surjyabali, the respondent No. 1, filed Title Suit No. 42 of 1966 against the present petitioner and the respondent No. 2 for declaration of his title in the land in dispute as a co -owner to the extent of one -third share and for possession by partition of the land representing his share. He happened to fix the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 600. Shiogobinda pleaded that the total value of the land in dispute was Rs. 20,000, that the jurisdictional value of the suit must correspond to the value of the entire land involved, and that in consequence the Munsiff at Dharmanagar, in whose Court the suit had been filed, had no jurisdiction in the matter since he could try suits only upto the value of Rs. 4000.

(2.) The Munsiff formulated the following preliminary issue respecting the controversy just stated:

(3.) Shri A.M. Lodh, appearing for the plaintiff -respondent, raised the preliminary objection, at the very outset of the hearing, that the revision petition is not competent. I have found this objection to be without merit. Clause (I) of para 34 of the Order provides inter alia that the Court of the Judicial Commissioner may call for the record of any case which has been decided by a Civil Court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies to it, if on an application made to it the Court of the Judicial Commissioner is of the opinion that there is an important question of law or custom involved and such question requires further consideration. Shri R. Ghosh contended for the petitioner that the instant revision petition raises an important question of law relating to the determination of the jurisdictional value of a suit filed by a co -owner for declaration of his title to the property jointly owned and for possession by partition of his share, and that such question requires consideration at the hands of this Court for the double reason that there is no pronouncement of this Court on the matter and that there is conflict of opinion between the other High Courts in India thereon. Shri A.M. Lodh was not in a position to cite any pronouncement of this Court covering the point in issue, nor could he deny that there is judicial divergence between the other High Courts on that point Hence. I hold that the revision is clearly maintainable as it raises a question which falls within the ambit of Para 34(1) of the Order.