PREM DULARI Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit under the Right of Prior Purchase Act was lodged by the respondent against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional District Judge Jammu with respect to a house situate at Mohalla Panchtirthi Jammu. The plaintiff valued the suit for purposes or court -fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 10,700/ -, whereas the consideration mentioned in the sale deed was Rs. 13.000/ -. An objection was raised by the defendant -vendee with regard to the court -fee paid by the plaintiff. A preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court about the deficiency in the court -fee. The trial Court held that the sale price of Rs. 13,OOO/ - mentioned in the sale deed was fixed in good faith and paid to the vendee. It, therefore, held Rs. 13,000/ - as the market value of the property and directed the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in the court - fee to that extent. Against that order the defendant vendee has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE defendants main argument is that the market value of the house should be the market value at the time of the institution of the suit and not at the time the sale took place. According to him, the market value of the house at the time of the institution of the suit was Rs. 15.000/ -, and hence the plaintiff should have paid court -fee on that consideration and not on Rs. 13.000/ - as held by the trial Court.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised about the maintainability o £ this revision petition. Unfortunately there is divergence o £ authorities on the point and even the same High Courts have in more than one case been compelled to set aside their earlier decisions. Earlier Full Bench decisions have been set aside by the same Courts in subsequent authorities. The matter of revisability of such orders came up before the Supreme Court in two authorities reported as Nemi Chand v. Edward Mills Co Ltd,, AIR 1953 S C 28 and Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 S C 1299. Even these two authorities at the first sight do not seem to be consistent with each other, and the latest authority, AIR 1961 S C 1299 (Supra) would apparently appear to have laid down a much wider dictum annulling by implication its decision in AIR 1953 S C 28 (Supra). 1 shall take up the Supreme Court authorities last of all, First let me state the various propositions as emanate from various decisions of the different High Courts in India, in the matter of the maintainability of a revision against an order deciding the question of court -fee. There are some authorities which lay down that no revision lies against an order of an inferior Court wherein the question of court -fee is decided. As an illustration for this extreme view the following authorities may be mentioned: