MADHUSUDAN DAHYABHAI PATEL Vs. MANILAL HARILAL PATEL
LAWS(GJH)-1963-1-3
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 30,1963

MADHUSUDAN DAHYABHAI PATEL Appellant
VERSUS
MANILAL HARILAL PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.B.RAJU - (1.) What is challenged in this revision application is the view taken by the lower appellate Court that the appeal before it should be returned for presentation to the High Court and that the District Court is not competent to hear the appeal.
(2.) The suit was one for accounts for the sum due after taking accounts and for an injunction to restrain the opponents from taking an objection to the petitioner taking part in a business. The suit was also for a declaration that a certain writing was illegal void and not binding upon the petitioner. The suit was also for a declaration that whatever property was acquired from the income of business was a joint Hindu family property and for a permanent injunction to restrain the opponents from obstructing the petitioner from doing Vahivat. The suit was also for a partition of property acquired from the income of the business. The suit was valued at Rs. 205/for the purpose of court-fees. The suit was originally filed in the Court of Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) but as by joint purshis the parties agreed that the value of the suit exceeded Rs. 10 0 the suit was transferred to the Civil Judge Senior Division. When the matter went up in appeal the appellate Court was of the view that the District Court was not competent to hear the appeal but only the High Court and the memorandum of appeal was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. This order is now challenged in revision.
(3.) As the suit is one for a declaratory decree where consequential relief is claimed sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act of 1870 is applicable but so far as partition of the property acquired from the income of the business is concerned it does not fall under sec. 7 at all. It is therefore contended that sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act applies and the value for the purpose of the jurisdiction should be the same as the value for the purpose of court-fees. It is also contended therefore that the value for the purpose of court-fee is that which is given by the plaintiff in his plaint namely Rs. 205.00. It is therefore contended that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is also Rs. 205/and that therefore the District Court is competent to hear the appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.