BADARANNESSA CHAUDHURANI Vs. RAM CHANDRA MALA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are briefly these. The plaintiffs in the suit brought a suit in which they claimed that a certain jote was held under them by the defendants and not by them under the pro forma defendants. In the trial Court the suit was valued at Rs. 200 and this valuation was accepted both by the trial Court and the parties. The appeal to the lower appellate Court was valued at the same amount. The office made a note on the memorandum of appeal as follows: This is a suit for establishment of the plaintiffs taluka right over the disputed land and for declaration of getting rent from the 2nd party defendant. Ad valorem fee has been paid on valuation of Rs. 200 in both the Courts.

(2.) The learned District Judge then made a note asking the lower Court to explain how the valuation was arrived at and under what section the court-fees were assessed. The learned Judge says that Section 7(c) would seem to apply and he asked both parties to produce a copy of the rayati khattian in question by 17 August 1926. It is difficult to understand why the lower appellate Court should have asked the trial Court or its explanation. The valuation had been accepted by the lower Court and both the parties and presumably was correct. Be that as it may the trial Court replied as follows: The suit in question was instituted in the local Munsif's 6 Court on 13 August 1923 and was registered in that Court that, is, before the chart for the guidance of valuation of suit land was issued. This Court received the suit on transfer and as the defendant did not raise any objection as to the value of the suit no question on. the point arose for my consideration.

(3.) The chart referred to in the explanation requires explanation. We are informed that the District Judge has sent round to the Subordinate Courts in the district a chart in which the valuation is set out of the various classes of land in the district. The propriety of the issue of a chart of this character is over questionable. Section 9, Court-fees Act, provides that the Court may if it questions valuation issue a commission for such local investigation as is necessary. But it makes no provision for a chart of this kind and for the District Court to issue a chart of this kind to the Subordinate Court seems to me to be a serious interference with those Courts judicial discretion and entirely unwarranted by any provision of the Act. After the receipt of this explanation by the lower appellate Court the appellant prayed for ten days time to produce the map and the khattian. There is a note by the lower appellate Court that there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff respondents. On 4 October the appellant prayed for further time to produce the map and the khattian. The learned Judge refused to grant further time stating that the appellant could have brought the map and khattian long ago and that he. was not prosecuting the appeal properly and that the memo of appeal was therefore rejected. Against this order the appellant has appealed to this Court.