- (1.)THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the trial court holding that the court-fee paid was insufficient which was confirmed on appeal by the appellate court.
(2.)THE facts of the case are these. THEre was a house belonging to Naga and his son Gopia. Naga died in 1942 leaving a widow Smt. Kesar. On the death of Naga the house became the property of his own Gopia who died in 1954 leaving a widow Smt. Jatni who became the limited owner of the house after the death of her husband. On the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 Smt. Jatni became the full owner of this house. On 6-8-59 Smt. Kesar sold the house for Rs. 800/- to Lalia. Smt. Jatni filed the present suit on 3-3-64 for possession over the house. She valued her suit at Rs. 800/ -. , the market value of the house which was sold on 6 8-59 and possession over it was claimed by her. THE suit was resisted by Lalia inter alia on the ground that he was a bona fide purchaser and has made constructions in the house after purchase costing Rs. 1500/ -. THE trial court held that the market value of the house was Rs. 2300/-, i. e. Rs. 800/- plus 1500/- and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to proper court as his pecuniary jurisdiction extended only upto Rs. 2000/ -. This order was confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge.
The contention on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant is that she claims possession only over the house as it stood on the date of the sale and she does not claim any possession over the house including improvements and as such the suit has been rightly valued at Rs. 800/- by her. In support of this contention he has referred to a decision of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Durga Das vs. Nihal Chand (l ).

The learned counsel for Lalia on sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act 1961, which only lays down that where the fee payable depends on the market value of any property such value shall be determined as on the date of the presentation of the plaint. It does not lay down that if any improvement have been made in the property the plaintiff should include the value of the improvements in the valuation of his house. I am accordingly of the opinion that the law under the Rajasthan Court-fees & Suits Valuation Act 1961 in this respect is the same as the law under the Indian Court-fees Act. I am respectfully in agreement with the view taken in Durga Das vs. Nihal Chand (l ).

I accordingly allow the revision application with costs, set aside the order of the courts below returning the plaint for presentation to proper court and direct the trial court to try the suit in accordance with law. .

;