S KISHAN SINGH Vs. LBALA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by Kishen Singh appellant against Hardit Singh respondent for possession by pre-emption of an ihata partly built upon situate in Sultanwind in the Tehsil and District of Amritsar on payment of a sum of RS. 4.60. The property in suit,, along with soma other property, was sold by Bala Mai defendant 1 to the aforesaid Hardit Singh by means of sale-deed dated 6 November 1943 for a sum of Rs. 14,560. In his plaint, the plaintiff valued the suit property, for purposes of court-fee as well as jurisdiction, at Rs. 460 and wanted a decree for possession to be passed in his favour on payment of the aforesaid sum.

(2.) On an objection being taken by the vendee defendant 2 to the valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and of jurisdiction, the learned trial Judge held an inquiry into that matter and, after such inquiry, held that the suit property was of the value of RS. 9925 on the date of the institution of the suit and directed the plaintiff to make up deficiency in court-fee. The plaintiff having failed to do so within the time allowed by the Court, his plaint was rejected. An appeal by the plaintiff presented to the learned District Judge was dismissed by him inter alia on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 12, Court-fees Act, the decision of the trial Court on the question of valuation was not liable to be challenged. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved from this order has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) Section 12, Court-fees Act reads as follows: (i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this Chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit. (ii) But whenever any such suit comes before a Court of appeal, reference or revision, if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the question been rightly decided, and the provisions of Section 10, para, (ii) shall apply. There has been some conflict of judicial opinion as regards the interpretation to be placed on Clause (i) of the aforesaid section. In Ajoodhya Pershad V/s. Ganga Pershad 6 Cal. 249 the High Court of Calcutta took the view that the finality declared by Section 12, Court- fees Act was amended by the Civil P. C. in 1882 inasmuch as under that Code, an appeal lay from an order rejecting a plaint as from a decree and that in such an appeal it was open to the aggrieved party to question the correctness of the valuation by the first Court. In Prohash Chandra Sarkar and Ors. V/s. Raja Bisumbhar Nath Sahi 6 I.C. 18 the same view of the law was taken. The Court in that case had dismissed the suit on the failure of the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in court-fee within the time fixed, the suit having been found by the trial Court to have been undervalued.