KANAKRAJ Vs. GOPIKISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur dated December 8, 1973 upholding the order passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur dated August 23, 1973 in respect of the decision of issues No. 11 and 14.

(2.) THE plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 600/ - in respect of the relief of possession of the disputed property and paid a court -fee of Rs. 45/ - thereon. The objection of the defendant was that the market value of the disputed land was about Rs. 9,000/ - and of the constructions made by the defendant thereon was also Rs. 9,000/ - and as such the valuation of the suit for purposes of payment of court -fees should have been Rs. 18,000/ - in respect of the relief of possession and, thus, the court -fees paid was in -sufficient. The trial court treated issues No. 11 and 14 as preliminary issues. The defendant desired to lead evidence in respect of the valuation of the land in dispute and the constructions made thereon, but the learned Counsel for the plaintiff accepted the valuation mentioned by the defendant in respect of the plot in dispute in his written statement and desired that the aforesaid issues may be decided without recording any evidence. The trial court thereupon held that the suit should have been valued at Rs. 9,000/ - in respect of the relief of possession, according to the value specified by the defendant in respect of the plot in dispute. It was also held that as the plaintiff claimed possession over the land in dispute and not over the building constructed on it and as such the court -fees was payable on the market value of the land only and not in respect of the constructions made thereon. The trial court also came to the conclusion that as the valuation of the suit, for purposes of relief of possession, should have been Rs. 9,000/ -, the suit was not triable by the Munsif's court as that court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur on appeal, after considering the averments made by the parties in their respective pleadings, came to the conclusion that the suit was for possession of the entire plot of land bearing No. 383 in Masuria Colony, Jodhpur and not in respect of only the portion thereof over which constructions had been made by the defendant. Thus, the decision arrived at by the trial court in respect of the valuation of the suit in respect of the relief of possession was upheld by the appellate court.

(3.) IN the result, the revision application is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The record of the trial court should be returned to that court immediately, so that the plaint may be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court.