BHAIRAB CHANDRA RAI Vs. SAT NARAIN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this case is whether the Munsif of Raghunathpore has pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the partition suit brought by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaintiffs allege that on 27-9-1939 corresponding to 10th Aswin, 1346 Bengal Sambat, they purchased 16 gandas and odd share of defendants 1 to 4 with respect to their separate and ijmal khewats by registered sale deeds. This share corresponds to one-fourth, share of schedule 1 properties and one-sixteenth share of Schedule 2 properties as described in the plaint. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration of their title to the share claimed and for partition and separate possession of their shares in the milkiat interest. The defendants appeared before the Munsif and raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit. It was stated on their behalf that the value of the Schedule 1 properties was Rs. 16,000 and that of Schedule 2 properties Rs. 10,000/-. Upon a consideration of the evidence adduced, the learned Munsif held that the value of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 properties would be Rs. 20,000 and the value of the shares claimed by the plaintiffs in both the schedules would be Rs. 3,125. Accordingly the learned Munsif held that he had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the partition suit.

(3.) In support of this rule, Mr. Baidynath Prasad I submitted that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit since the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is not the value of the shares claimed by the plaintiffs but the value of the whole milkiat property, of which partition is sought. It was contended by the learned counsel that in a suit for partition the Court does often on the application of the defendants effect partition of the shares of the defendants amongst themselves and therefore, in such a case, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction cannot be the value of the plaintiffs' share only because the Court deals with the entire estate. In support of this view, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in --'Rajani Kanta Bag v. Rajabala Dasi', AIR 1925 Cal 320 (A), in which it was held by the Division Bench of that High Court that in a partition suit it is the entire value of the property which determines jurisdiction and not the share which the plaintiff claims in the property. I am unable, however, to accept the argument of the learned counsel for various reasons. In the first place there is a decision of our High Court in --'Dukhi Singh v. Harihar Shah', AIR 1921 Pat 78 (B), in which it was held by Jawla Prasad and Adami, JJ. that the value of a suit for partition for the purpose of jurisdiction, is the value of the share claimed by the plaintiff and not the value of the whole property of which partition is sought. It appears from the report that the learned Judges noticed that there was divergence of opinion on the point between the Calcutta High Court on the one hand and Bombay, Madras and Allahabad High Courts on the other. The view taken by the Calcutta High Court is reported in an earlier case --'Bhagwat Sahay v. Pashupati Nath Bose', 10 Cal WN 564 (C). But this case was expressly dissented from by Jwala Prasad and Adami, JJ. who decided the Patna case reported in --'AIR 1921 Pat 78 (B)' The decision in --'AIR 1925 Cal 320 (A)', upon which the petitioner relies merely follows the previous decision of that High Court reported in --'10 Cal WN 564 (C)'. I, therefore, propose to follow the Division Bench case reported in --'AIR 1921 Pat 78 (B)', by the authority of which we are bound. There are other important considerations which support the principle laid down in --'AIR 1921 Pat 78 (B)'. In the first place, Section 8, Suits Valuation Act states : "Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section paragraphs v, vi, and ix, and paragraph x, Clause (d), court fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same." In the present case, the Munsif has fixed the value of the plaintiff's share at Rs. 3,125 for which ad valorem court-fee under Section 7 (iv) (c) was demanded. In view of Section 8 Suits Valuation Act, the value for purpose of jurisdiction would be Rs. 3,125 and the Munsif would have jurisdiction to try the suit. In the second place, there is a recent decision of the Judicial Committee on the question as to what is the value of the suit in a case where the plaintiff seeks partition of his share in joint family properties. In --'Bai Shevantibai v. Janardhan Raghunath', AIR 1944 PC 65 (D), the assignee of the purchaser from a member of a joint family of a share in the joint family property sued for partition of the family property and to have the share allotted to her. The total value of the joint family property exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. The value of the share which the appellant claimed was about Rs. 3,000/-. It was held by the Judicial Committee that the value of the share of the joint family property in respect of which the appellant was claiming must be taken to be the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council, and further it was held that a question as to the title of the plaintiff to the share which she claimed in the joint family property did not become a question respecting the whole of the joint family estate merely because if her title was established it would result in the joint family estate being partitioned. It is true that in this case the Judicial Committee was considering the value of the subject-matter in appeal under Section 110, Civil P. C., but the principle laid down is of assistance in determining the question at issue in the present case. On behalf of the appellants learned counsel relied upon --'Ranjit Sahi v. Muhammad Qasim', AIR 1923 Pat 342 (E). But the material facts of that case are different. In that case, there was a suit brought for partition by the plaintiff who was in joint possession of his share and there was no dispute as to the title or share claimed by him. In this state of facts, it was held by the High Court that the value of the whole property sought to be partitioned was the value for purposes of jurisdiction, and not the value of the plaintiff's share alone. The learned Judges recognised, however, that where there was a dispute about the plaintiff's share and the plaintiff sought for an adjudication of his title and for partition after such adjudication it was the value of the plaintiff's share which will determine the jurisdiction of the Court and not the value of the entire property. At page 343 of the report the learned Judge states : "No doubt in considering the question as to whether the appeal in that case lay to the High Court or to the District Court, their Lordships considered the broad question as to the value of suits in partition cases, but to my mind there is a distinction between suits for partition pure and simple, where the plaintiff is in joint possession of his share and there is no dispute as to his title or share, and suits where the plaintiff seeks for an adjudication of his title or extent of share and for partition after such adjudication. In the latter case, it is the value of the plaintiff's share which will determine the jurisdiction of the Court and not the value of the entire property. In the present case, there is no question as regards the title of the plaintiff; the only question before the Court was as regards partition; and therefore the value of the whole of the properties sought to be partitioned must be the value for the purposes of jurisdiction." The ratio of --'AIR 1923 Pat 342 (E)', does not in my opinion apply to the present case. On the contrary, the present case falls within the ambit of the principle laid down by the High Court in --'AIR 1921 Pat 78 (B)', and it must be held that the value of the suit brought by the plaintiffs for the purposes of jurisdiction is the value of the share claimed by the plaintiffs and not the value of the whole property of which partition has been sought.