HARIPADA DATTA Vs. MADHUSUDAN DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haripada Datta, plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit in the court of Munsiff at Karimganj, for a declaration that he has got eight annas share in the suit holding and for an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any portion of the land in question detailed and described in the schedule appended at the foot of the plaint and also for a decree for possession of his eight annas share in the said land. The facts set out in the plaint are these :

(2.) Debendra Chandra Dutta, the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute. On his demise the plaintiff inherited his assets. At the time of the death of his father the plaintiff was a minor; hence his uncle Srish Chandra Datta looked after his education etc. The plaintiff left Karimganj to serve in different tea gardens as Manager. His step-brother Siba Prasanna Datta died on 16th May 1958. But prior to his death, he had relinquished his right, title and interest in the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff. Srish Chandra Datta was the father of the defendants. The plaintiff had a high regard for him. When the plaintiff retired from service he came to Karimganj and requested his uncle to hand over his share in the said property, but Srish Ch. Datta avoided to do so. Ultimately Srish Ch. Datta died. Hence he requested the defendants to hand over his share in the said property but they also did not do so. On the contrary they wanted to sell the entire holding with a view to deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate share. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit which was given rise to the instant revision petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The suit has been resisted and the defendants have filed their written statement wherein it has been inter alia averred that the suit land had not been properly valued and proper court-fee has not been paid on it. According to the defendants the value of the land described in the schedule of the plaint would be not less than Rs. 2 lakhs and as the plaintiff is not in possession of the same, the suit cannot proceed without payment of ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the property claimed by him.