GUJABAI Vs. SALULAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff and defendant 1 are according to the allegations in the plaint co-widows of one Yadao, who died on 1-9-1942. It is stated in the plaint that the two widows succeeded to his property, but defendant 1 (the co-widow) is excluding the plaintiff from possession and enjoyment thereof and has also alienated a part of the property, viz., one field, in favour of defendants 2 and 3, though she had no right to alienate the plaintiff's share therein. She therefore instituted the present suit for partition and possession of her share of the property inasmuch as there was an alienation by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 she asked for a declaration that the alienation was not binding on her.

(2.) SHE valued her claim for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 409-6-0. The plaintiff's share in the house and movables was valued ad valorem at Rs. 76 and 190, and court-fee was paid thereon. She valued the field property for purposes of court-fee at 7 1/2 times the revenue, and as she claimed a half share therein the value came to Rs. 144-6-0. For purposes of jurisdiction, the fields were valued at 15 times the revenue, and half the fields being claimed by the plaintiff the value of that half was treated as the value for purposes of jurisdiction. Court-fee was paid accordingly.

(3.) IN revision, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the valuation was correct and she should not have been called upon to pay any extra court fee, on the market value of the field property as stated by the Court below. The main question for decision therefore in this revision is whether the valuation at 7 1/2 times the land revenue for purposes of court-fee and 15 times the land revenue for purpose of jurisdiction is correct.