JHARI MAHTO Vs. SAGAR MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE a simple question of law is involved in this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not think it necessary to hear the respondents before passing the order.

(2.) THE question of law involved is as to whether the Court of Subordinate Judge is justified in passing the impugned order dated 03.1.2008 in Title Suit No.237 of 2007 whereby he has ordered for return of the plaint on the ground that the Court of Subordinate Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, since the suit was valued at Rs. One lac only, it comes with the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif.

(3.) IT is, therefore, clear that for the purpose of both the Court -fees and jurisdiction, the suit was valued at Rs. 1,00,100/ -which comes within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge. It is well settled that the determination of valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction depends upon the determination of the valuation for the purpose of payment of Court -fee within the meaning of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Computation of Court -fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv) of the Court -fees Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of Court -fee, that determines the value for jurisdiction. This principle has also been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar [AIR 1958 S.C. 245], where their Lordships observed: -