SELINA SHEEHAN Vs. HAFEZ MOHAMMAD FATEH NASHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained on behalf of one Salina Sheehan who is the defendant in a suit brought against her by Hafez Mohommed Fateh Nashib, the opposite party in these proceedings. The Rule was directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, 24-Pargannas, on 2 December, 1931.

(2.) It appears that the suit out of which this matter arises, was brought by Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib on the allegation that he was entitled to be the muttawali of certain properties of which a house No. 1, Store Road, Ballygunge, in the possession of the defendant Selina Sheehan is said to have formed part. We are told that, in fact, Mrs. Sheehan has been in possession of this particular property for a space of something like 12 years. She purchased it from certain persons and subsequently there was a suit in the Alipur Court the judgment in which in effect decided that the property in question had been lawfully alienated and acquired by Mrs. Sheehan. In the present suit we are not concerned with the actual merits of the case. The plaintiff had originally, for the purposes of court-fees, put a valuation upon the property in dispute of Rs. 5,100 and upon that footing he had paid appropriate court-fees. The defendant took exception to that and accordingly there was an investigation into the question of valuation as a preliminary issue in the suit, and as a result of the proceedings the Court came to the conclusion that the right valuation was Rs. 60,000 and the appropriate ad valorem court-fees ought to be levied accordingly. In his judgment which the learned Subordinate Judge gave on 3 September 1931, after taking evidence and hearing the parties upon the matter, he says: In my opinion therefore the suit has been greatly under-valued and court-fees paid are insufficient. In this view of the matter the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficit court-fees on the value of Rs. 55,000.

(3.) That value of Rs. 55,000 is of course the difference between the value which the learned Subordinate Judge found to be a correct value and the value which the plaintiff himself had originally put upon the property. The order concludes thus: "The plaintiff is directed to pay the same within a month from date."