LAL SINGH Vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for possession of some agricultural land by pre-emption was filed by the plaintiff, who is the petitioner before me. The trial Court granted him the decree on payment of Rs. 6,193.25. In the plaint, value for the purposes of Court-fee was mentioned as Rs. 81.30 calculated at 10 times the land revenue. Value for purposes of jurisdiction, however, was fixed at Rs. 5,500/-, which purported to be the sale price as fixed in the sale-deed. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court because according to him the amount of Rs. 5,500/- was not fixed or paid in good faith and he claimed that the should be granted the decree for possession on payment of much lesser amount the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge. That was returned to be presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction because the learned District Judge held that inasmuch as the value for the purposes of jurisdiction, as fixed by the plaintiff himself, was more than Rs. 5,000/- and inasmuch as the suit was filed before the date of the amendment in the Punjab Courts Act, the appeal lay to the High Court. Being aggrieved by this order, the present petition was filed. The memorandum of appeal that had been returned to the petitioner was also filed in this Court.

(2.) The sole point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pre-emption suits, value for the purposes of Court-fee as well as jurisdiction is to be fixed in accordance with Section 7(v)(b) read with rule 2(b) framed under the Suits Valuation Act. According to these, the value for the purposes of Court-fee for agricultural land paying land revenue is to be calculated at 10 times the land revenue and that for purposes of jurisdiction at 30 times the land revenue. The mere fact that the plaintiff had, by mistake or otherwise, wrongly fixed the value for purposes of jurisdiction would not work as estopped, and the forum of the appeal would be the same as in the case where the value is properly fixed in accordance with the rules. A full Bench of this Court in Gajja Singh V/s. Gurdial Singh, 1960 AIR(P&H) 467had put a seal on the matter by holding that this jurisdictional value determined in the manner detailed above, remains constant notwithstanding the directions given by the Court under Order 20, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, relating to the deposit of the sale price, and that such sale price or the market value of the land in litigation has no relevancy "in determining the forum of suit or appeal" in a pre-emption suit relating to agricultural land, and the forum is governed by the jurisdictional value fixed under the Suit Valuation Act.

(3.) In the light of the above, therefore, the proper jurisdictional value of the suit as well as the appeal was 30 times the land revenue and it is not denied that this was well within the jurisdiction of the District Judge.