RAJARAM Vs. SHARAD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are defendants in Cos. No. 20 -A/85 filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Sendhwa (Respondent No. 5) seeking reliefs of declaration in regard to Agricu Itura I land, categorised as Joint Family Property that sale -deed dated 20.12.73 executed by Vithalrao (father of Respondents No. 1 and 2) in favour of petitioners on consideration of Rs. 16,000/ - was void on the ground of absence of legal necessity and of possession plus mesne -profits. For the purpose of jurisdiction and Court -Fee, suit was valued at Rs. 300/ - (for declaration) and Rs. 250/ - (for possession) and presented with Court -fee of Rs. 55/ -. The petitioners challenged this and pleaded that suit was undervalued and needed to be valued at Rs. 16,000/ - and affixed with Court -fee stamps accordingly. The trial Court accepted the contention and vide order dated 19.9.90 (Annexure P/3) answered two preliminary issues in this behalf in favour of the petitioners. It was ordered that it should be valued at Rs. 16,000/ - with Court fee on this amount and be presented in proper Court as the trial Court's pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 10,000/ -. This order was assailed in Misc. Appeal No. 5/92 before. the Addl. Judge Sendhwa to the Court of District Judge, Mandleshwar (Respondent No. 6) who by order dated 22.4.93 (Annexure P/4) reversed the order of the Trial Court and holding it to be properly valued directed it to entertain and try the same. The petitioners have impugned this order (Annexure P/4) in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN view of the order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 2007/93 (Laxman v. Sharad Kumar and others) on 25.3.94, parties agreed that this petition also merited to be allowed with similar directions. Even otherwise in the face of AIR 1973 SC 2384 (Shamsher Singh v. Rajendra Prasad), the order (Annexure P/4) was manifestly illegal and infirm and deserved to be dislodged and demolished. The suit was clearly liable to be valued according to the consideration contained in the sale -deed against which declaration was sought and to be stamped with Court -fee on that basis. The order of the Appellate Court was thus, clearly contrary to law and without jurisdiction. It is thus, found to be interferable on the basis of parameters laid down in AIR 1984 SC 38. In the result, I allow this petition and set aside order (Annexure P/4) with the result that order of the trial Court Annexure P/3) is revivified. The direction about presentation of plaint in another Court, as contained in Annexure P/3 is, however, vacated in view of the amended position of law with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction. Sequel to this as prayed, following directions are issued.