MITHILESH THAKUR Vs. RADHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs -petitioners challenging order dated 19.10.2006 by which the learned Munsif -l, Darbhanga, fixed the valuation of the suit property described in Schedule -ll of the plaint at Rs. 40,000.00 in Partition Suit No. 89 of 1992.

(2.) THE aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of 8.93 dhurkies land described in Schedule -ll of the plaint from 1 katha, 12.88 dhurkies of land described in Schedule -I of the plaint. The plaintiffs ' claim was based upon their purchase of Schedule -II land. The defendant 1st Party appeared in the suit and filed her written statement, in paragraph 31 of which specific averment was made and undertaking was given to buy the share of the transferee plaintiffs.

(3.) IT transpired that thereafter the matter with regard to determination of the valuation of the property detailed in Schedule -II of the plaint was taken up by the learned trial court as per the directions given in the abovementioned judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and by order dated 22.2.2005, the learned Additional Munsif, 4th, Darbhanga, directed the parties to adduce evidence for determination of prevailing rate of Schedule -ll property of the plaint of Title Suit No. 89 of 1992. The said order was challenged by defendant 1st Party in this court vide C.R. No. 500 of 2005. However, after considering of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this court by order dated 18.1.2006 allowed the civil revision, set aside the imugned order of the learned court below dated 22.2.2005 and held that the crucial date is the date on which defendant 1st Party exercised her option under Section 4 of the Partition Act and hence the relevant date for fixation of the value of the property in Schedule -II of the plaint is 12.2.1993 on which date the petitioner exercised her option under Section 4 of the Partition Act and filed written statement in paragraph 31 of which undertaking in that regard was given. The learned court below was directed to determine the value of the suit property as on the aforesaid date, i.e. 12.2.1993. The said order of this court was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Hon ble Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8186 of 2006 which was dismissed on 11.5.2006. Thus, the order of this court dated 18.1.2006 also stood affirmed.