KOSHALYA WANTI Vs. SHIV NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was instituted under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that the property in dispute comprising certain house situate in Subzi Mandi Delhi was the property of the petitioner and was not liable to attachment and sale in execution, of the decree for Rs. 8,750.75 nP. obtained by one Shiv Narain defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff's husband Jit Singh. This suit was valued for purposes of court-tee at Rs. 230/- and the same value was fixed for the purposes of jurisdiction. The defendant decree-holder raised an objection in the trial Court that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court's decision was as follows:

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled by now that in suits of this nature the valuation has to be according to the value of the decree in execution of which the properly has been attached or the value of the attached property itself. For this purpose my attention has been invited to Bishnu v. Lal Singh, 55 Pun Re 1906 and Shiv Ram v. Khurshed Ahmed, 1 Lah LJ 87 and it may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the contesting respondent does not dispute the correctness of the law laid down in these cases. IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the valuation had to be more than Rs. 5,0007- in either event and if by mistake or oversight the valuation was shown as Rs. 230/- that would not debar the Court from determining the correct valuation in order to decide the forum of appeal. IT is also pointed out that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, on which the learned Senior Sub Judge has relied, would have no application to the present case because the appeal has not so far been decided. The principle enunciated in Bansilal Lalchand v. Bhikubai, AIR 1948 Bom 8 has been invoked. In that case what had happened was that the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that a certain sate deed was not binding upon them and a permanent injunction was also claimed restraining the respondents from taking possession of the property sold to them under that document. For the purposes of court-fee the plaintiffs had valued their claim at Rs. 205/- whereas for the purposes of jurisdiction the claim was valued at Rs. 15,000/-. A decree was passed giving the plaintiffs certain reliefs. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the High Court. Before the High Court an objection was taken that by virtue of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation ACT the valuation of the suit had to be the same as the valuation for purposes of court-fees and, therefore, the jurisdictional value would be Rs. 205/- in which case the appeal would lie not to the High Court but to the District Court. The following observations of the Bombay Bench are noteworthy: