JOLEKHA BIBI Vs. DANIS MAHOMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the plaintiff brought his suit before the third Munsiff at Comilla for possession of certain land exceeding 3 karris in area. He valued the land at Rs. 100. When, the matter came before the officer of the Munsif's Court dealing with the reception of plaints, that officer compared the valuation with the valuation appearing, on a certain chart of land values with, which apparently the Munsif's office hack been provided as a guide to the question whether plaints were being properly valued or not. This document is referred to as the suits valuation chart. It is not a document which is in anyway evidence but it would appear to be a document with which the officers of the Courts in Tipperah are provided by way of administrative assistance in the discharge of their duties. The Munsif on the matter being drawn to his attention found that the valuation of Rs. 100 was low but, on the ground that the land was said to be an accretion to the river Goomti and to be submerged, he ordered the plaintiff to increase the valuation to Rs. l50 and, on that being done and the deficit court-fee being paid, the plaint was duly registered. Thereafter, the case went to trial and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, the Munsif holding that the plaintiff had not shown title to the land claimed. No question was raised by the defendant as to the sufficiency of the valuation. Thereupon, the plaintiff appalled to the learned District Judge of Tipperah and, upon that appeal being presented, the learned District Judge appears to have examined into the question of the valuation. The plaintiff valued the appeal as he had valued his suit in the trial Court at Rs. 150. The learned District Judge recorded the following order before he registered the memorandum of appeal: Plaintiff-appellant must show nature of land filing map and khatian. Ask lower Court to explain valuation by 5 January 1927.

(2.) On 5 January, the Judge recorded: Read lower Court's explanation. Appellant explains valuation with production of a kabala but without the copies of map and khatian. The land is said to be a new formation; but I have not been given the help I asked for, namely, the map and khatian. I do not think that the kabala of 1328 is a safe guide. I raise the valuation to Rs. 300 and deficit fees must, be paid on that for both Courts by 25 January 1927.

(3.) Again, on 25 January, the following order was recorded: Appellant submitted a further explanation the court-fees have not been paid. The appeal is dismissed.