MOHAN LAL JHANJI Vs. PARKASH CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer of the petitioner for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been declined. He has accordingly filed the present revision.

(2.) The dispute is between the family and relates to a declaration sought for declaring a land to be joint Hindu family coparcenary property. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit, seeking declaration that the suit land is a result of the income from the land measuring 58 kanals 4 marlas described in head note (b) and land measuring 39 kanals 6 marlas described in head note and to declare the suit property to be a joint Hindu family coparcenary property. It is claimed that respondent No.1-plaintiff is a coparcener with defendants for a property measuring 551 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Village Virk and Swaddi, Tehsil Jagraon and petitioner-defendant No.1 is a Karta of the family and has earned the property from the funds of the land as afore-mentioned in the names of defendant No.1 and other defendants.

(3.) On a notice being issued, petitioner appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit is barred by limitation and also on the ground of wrong valuation of the suit for fixing the court fee. It is pleaded that the petitioner never gave any income to respondent No.1 and other defendants since 1975 despite repeated demands. This has been taken as reasons to say that the suit is barred under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Submission is that respondent No.1-plaintiff himself has alleged that the petitioner and defendant and two other co-defendants had never given any income since 1975. Suit in this regard could be filed within a period of 12 years from 1975, which expired in 1987 whereas the present suit is filed in the year 2007. It is accordingly pleaded that it is hopelessly time barred. It is further urged that the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has been evaluated at Rs.195/-, paying a court fee of Rs.19.50P whereas value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction was required to be fixed under Section 7 Clause (5) of the Court Fees Act, 1987, according to which it should be the market value of the suit property.