BODH RAJ Vs. SHANKER DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of the City Judge, Jammu, dated 17 -12 -1970 whereby he has decided that the valuation of Rs. 130/ - fixed by the plaintiffs for purposes of jurisdiction in this case, is proper. The plaintiffs respondents brought a declaratory suit with the prayer that four shops mentioned in a sale deed dated 26 -11 -1967 registered on 27 -11 -1967 executed by the defendant -petitioner No. 2 in favour of Bodhraj defendant petitioner No. 1 be declared their property and defendant No. 2 had no power to alienate these as well as for a declaration that the sale deed mentioned above be declared void and ineffective against the interests of the plaintiffs. In para No. 9 of the plaint, the valuation for purposes of court -fee was mentioned Rs. 10/ - (fixed court -fee) and for jurisdiction purposes it was fixed as Rs. 130/ -. In reply to this plea the defendants in their written statement stated that the court fee was payable on the market value of the property and as the plaintiffs were out of possession they should have brought a suit for possession instead of a suit for declaration only.

(2.) TWO preliminary issues were struck on 31 -7 -1968 and parties were directed to produce their evidence. It appears that after some time it was pointed out to the court by means of an application that another preliminary issue should be framed and consequently on 24 -1 -1970 another issue was struck, numbered as Issue No. 3 which was to the following effect: - "Whether the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction has not been correctly fixed and the present suit is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court ? O. P. Ds.". The learned counsel for the parties argued the point without producing any evidence with regard to it and ultimately the trial court came to the conclusion in the order under revision, that the valuation had been correctly fixed as it was the option of the plaintiffs to fix the valuation for jurisdiction purposes because no rules had been made in this behalf. This preliminary issue was as such decided against the defendants. It is against this order that the defendants, feeling aggrieved, have come up in revision to this court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.