MAIMUNA BEGUM Vs. LAKSHMAN RABIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the interesting questions that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether a plaintiff having himself given a particular valuation of the suit in the plaint for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction and having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, can be permitted, after the decision has gone against it, to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the suit was under-valued or that if proper valuation had been taken, the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Silchar for cancellation of a khatian in respect of the suit land and for recovery of khas possession. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction at the amount of annual rental only and paid a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 1.10 under Article 5 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. The Shirastadar of the Court put a note to the effect that the valuation of the suit was not proper as the Court-fee should have been paid on the market value of the land. The learned Munsiff heard the plaintiff on the objection put by the Shirastadar and on consideration of the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff, held that the suit was governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and, according-ly, allowed the plaintiff to put his own valua-tion for the purpose of court-fee and for pecuniary jurisdiction. He was also directed to pay ad valorem court-fee on such valua-tion. This was done by an elaborate order passed on 24-5-80. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the plaintiff amended the plaint and put the valuation for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 150.00. This amendment was allowed by order dated 4-7-80 and thereafter the case proceeded for trial. The learned Munsiff tried the suit and on consideration of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record dismissed the same on merits by judgment dated 10-12-81. The learned Munsiff held that the plaintiff totally failed to prove his case. He could not produce any evidence in support of his claim of title or the alleged dispossession by the defendants, whereas the defendants produced the final khatian as evidence of their tenancy right over the suit land. The learned Munsiff, therefore, held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and was not entitled to any relief. The suit was accordingly, dismissed on merits. However, in the judgment, while deal-ing with one of the issues whether the suit was properly valued and stamped, the learned Munsiff observed that the suit was found not properly stamped and valued as the plaintiff admitted (in his deposition) that the suit land was valued at Rs. 12,000.00. Against the said judgment the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Assistant District Judge, Cachar at Sil-char which was also dismissed on contest. The learned Assistant District Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court and held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. The plaintiff filed the present second appeal before this Court.

(3.) The first submission of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellants is that the findings of the Courts below are perverse. This submis-sion, however, could not be substantiated by the learned counsel for the appellants. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below. There is a clear concurrent finding of both the Courts that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence in support of his case. On the other hand, the defendants could satisfy the court about their tenancy right in respect of the suit land by producing the final khatian in their favour, which stood unrebut-ted by the plaintiff. Nothing could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant to show that the aforesaid concurrent finding was perverse. The submission in regard to perver-sity of the findings, therefore, being devoid of any merit, is rejected.