DEVTA SATYA NARAIN Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point involved for consideration in this Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 20.2.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, relates to the interpretation to be placed upon the second proviso to Sub-Section (iv), read with clause (e) of sub section (v), of section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fee Act, 1968 (for short "1968 H.P. Act").

(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be stated as under: Petitioners ­ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that 8 heads of property categorized (A) to (H) are owned and possessed by Devta Satya Narain, petitioner No. 1, who is the family deity of petitioner ­ plaintiff No. 2 and respondent ­ defendant No. 1 Lal Chand. In the suit, petitioners ­ plaintiffs also sought a further declaration that a perpetual lease executed by respondent - defendant No. 1 concerning half share of the land in categories (A) & (B), 1/4th share of the land in category (C), half share of the land in category (D) and the property in categories (E), (F), (G) and (H) in favour of respondents 2 and 3, be declared to be illegal, null and void, without authority and not binding on the petitioners ­ plaintiffs and that this perpetual lease deed confers no right, title or interest upon respondents 2 and 3 with respect to the aforesaid property and all the revenue entries showing respondents 2 and 3 as the perpetual lessees of this property are illegal, void, of no effect or consequence and are not at all binding upon the parties. A consequential relief in the nature of an injunction was also claimed in the suit whereby respondents 2 and 3 were ordered to be restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of the petitioners with respect to the management of the aforesaid property by petitioner No. 2 in his capacity as Kardar / manager. For ready reference and for facility of easy understanding of the import of the issue involved, I reproduce hereinbelow the relevant extracts of the prayer part of the aforesaid plaint, of course shorn of all unnecessary details. It reads thus:

(3.) ORAL as well as documentary evidence was led in support of this issue by the respondents ­ defendants. The petitioners ­ plaintiffs did not lead any evidence, oral or documentary. The trial Court, by reference to the provisions of 1968 H.P. Act, held that the suit ought to have been valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction in accordance with the market value of the property and since it was not done, the petitioners - plaintiffs were directed to correct the valuation of the suit and pay deficient court fee within 30 days from the date of the passing of the order. Based upon the appreciation of the evidence led by the respondents - defendants in the suit, which was not rebutted in any manner by the petitioners ­ plaintiffs, the learned trial Court assessed the market value of the disputed half share of the property (with which the petitioners were concerned) at Rs.1,36,59,248/-. Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the impugned Order by filing the present Revision Petition.