- (1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated March 16, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Contai in Misc. Case No.13 of 2004 (re-numbered as J.Misc. Case No.8 of 2007) arising out of the Title Suit No.81 of 2003.
(2.) THE plaintiff / petitioner herein is one of the daughters of Late Deb Kumar Shasmal who was the owner of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. Deb Kumar Shasmal transferred some of his properties in favour of his son, proforma opposite party no.2 by several deeds of gift. After death of Deb Kumar, the petitioner inherited 1/4th share in the suit property. THE opposite party no.1 purchased 1/4th share of dwelling house in suit from Shyamali Mukherjee, another married daughter of deceased Deb Kumar. She is a completely stranger purchaser of the portion of undivided dwelling house of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. THE petitioner and her husband have been residing at the suit premises all along. The opposite party no.1 filed a title suit being Title Suit No.81 of 2003 before the learned Judge for declaration, partition and other reliefs and in that suit, the opposite party no.1 got a preliminary decree declaring 1/4th share in the suit property. After passing of the preliminary decree, the petitioner filed an application for pre-emption of the 1/4th share of the opposite party no.1 in the suit property and that application was allowed by disposal of a misc. case wherein it had been decided that the petitioner might pre-empt the suit property at the consideration money to be determined by the parties amicably in default, a valuer should be appointed to determine the valuation of the suit property and thereafter, the suit property would be sold to the petitioner at the valuation so arrived at by the valuer. Since, both the parties had failed to arrive at the valuation amicably, a valuer was appointed and the report filed by him was then challenged. The valuer was then directed to reassess the value and the valuer submitted a report after reassessment of the valuation in consultation with the Office of the Collector. After taking such measures, the valuer submitted his report which is under challenge before this Honble Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the above facts are not in dispute. The valuer submitted his report passed and on being dissatisfied with the said valuation by the petitioner, an application was filed for reassess the valuation and accordingly, the valuation had been assessed at Rs.38,23,275/- as on or before March 16, 2004.
(3.) IT may be mentioned here that the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act was filed on March 16, 2004 and the valuer was directed to ascertain the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, i.e., on March 16, 2004. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the valuation had not been done in accordance with law and the valuation was not determined on the basis of the valuation that prevailed in the year 2006 when the order for valuation was directed. Mr. Chatterjee has also contended that the valuer did not ask the parties to file deeds to show the valuation of the lands in the locality.;