SAMARENDRA KUMAR MOTILAL Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR MOTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1963 on January 2, 1963 in the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh, for a declaration that the deed of gift dated October 29, 1948 by the father of the petitioner in favour of the defendant opposite party in respect of the house bearing holding No. 349, ward No. VIII of the Hazaribagh Municipality was inoperative, ineffective and void and that it was not acted upon and for joint possession with the defendant over the same.

(2.) There is no dispute that the house in question belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the defendant. The parties are governed by the Dayabhag School of Hindu Law. Their father Rai Saheb Narendra Kumar Motilal died on or about January 1, 1951 leaving behind two sons, namely the plaintiff and the defendant besides three married daughters. He was a registered medical practitioner at Hazaribagh and was residing in the house in question which he gifted away to the defendant by a registered deed of gift dated October 29, 1948 which is being challenged as void and invalid conveying no title to the defendant on various grounds. In the deed of gift the valuation of the property was given at Rupees 2000/-. Hence the petitioner valued his title suit at Rs. 2000/- and paid a declaratory court-fee only. On the report of the Sharistadar, however, ad valorem court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 2000/- was demanded and the petitioner paid the same. In paragraph 14 of the written statement the defendant opposite party raised a plea that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court as the valuation of the property in suit is not less than Rs. 50,000/- and that the suit could not proceed without payment of ad valorem court-fee thereon.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application on January 6, 1967 for appointment of a receiver in respect of the property in suit alleging therein that the monthly rental of the house in question was Rs. 595/- per month. The receivership matter was put up for hearing on January 31, 1967 and in course of the hearing of the matter learned counsel for the defendant raised a point that in view of the clear admitted position in the case that the monthly rental of the house was Rs. 595/-, the value of the house would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Hence the matter of jurisdiction was heard before the receivership matter. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner that the valuation of the house in suit was given at Rs. 2000/- and as the petitioner was challenging the validity of the gift, the suit was rightly valued. On the other hand it was contended that the suit was for a declaration of title and for joint possession in respect of the house, even the annual income of which exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Munsif accepted the plea of the defendant and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before a proper Court. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hazaribagh, and hence, has come up in revision before this Court.