KESHO MAHTON Vs. AYODHYA MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I shall dispose of these two civil revision petitions by a common judgment as a common point of law arises for consideration in both these civil revision petitions.

(2.) The point for consideration is: Whether the valuation given by the plaintiffs under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') is to be accepted, or, whether the Court has jurisdiction to interfere with this valuation on the ground that it is not a reasonable one?

(3.) In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions, namely, (1) in the case of Gauri Shankar Mahansaria v. Union of India (1980 BUR 455) : (AIR 1980 Pat 217), (2) in the case of Smt. Prem Kishori Devi v. The State of Bihar (1981 BBCJ 531) : (AIR 1982 Pat 47), (3) in the case of Secretary, Managing Committee, Dwarkanath High School, Muzaffarpur v. Gaurishankar Jha (Civil Revision No. 388 of 1979) disposed of on 20th Sept., 1979, (4) in the case of Shree Thakur Durga Narainjee Asthapit Mandir v. Surendra Prasad Sah (Civil Revision No. 1141 of 1980) disposed of on 24th March, 1982, (5) in the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasamy Pillai (AIR 1915 Mad 948), (6) in the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Cheiasami Ramiah v. Chelasami Ramasami (1913-18 Ind Cas 363) and (7) in the case of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar (AIR 1958 SC 245).