Single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging an order maintaining the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge Junior Division in a suit for partition. The court held valuation should be on plaintiff's claim share.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3208 OF2006
Babu Ramu Wadar ..Petitioner.
Vs.
Smt. Yankmma Parsu Kalgutgi & Ors. ..Respondents.
Ms.Deepa Matwankar h/for S.G.Deshmukh, advs. for the
Petitioner.
CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J.
DATE : AUGUST 17, 2007.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms.Matwankar the learned counsel for the
petitioner, who is original defendant no.1. The
plaintiff, who is respondent no.2(a) before this Court
filed the suit for partition and separate possession in
the suit house. He valued the entire property at
Rs.16,000/- and on the basis of 1/8th share in the said
house and for the purpose of injunction, he valued the
suit at Rs.2,300/- and paid Court fee accordingly. The
defendant no.1 filed an application under Section 9A of
the C.P.C. contending that as per the market rates,
value of the property is Rs.3,05,785/- and, therefore,
it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil
Judge, Junior Division. He also produced a report of
an architect in support of his claim. The learned IInd
Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ichalkaranji
rejected the application observing that the defendant
:2:
no.1 had neither entered into witness box nor the
architect, who has submitted the report is examined,
that the architect’s report is not a public document
and, therefore, it can not be inferred that the value
of the property is more than Rs.3 lakhs. He came to
conclusion that the defendant had failed to prove that
the suit is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction,
which is Rs.1 lakh.
2. Admittedly, pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil
Judge is up to Rs.1 lakh. Even if it is presumed that
the value of the property is correctly shown by the
defendant still value of 1/8th share of the plaintiff
in the said property would be slightly more than
Rs.38,000/-, which is within the pecuniary
jurisdiction. For the purpose of deciding whether the
suit is within the pecuniary jurisdiction, valuation
has to be made on the basis of claim of the plaintiff
and not on the basis of total value of the disputed
property.
3. In view of this, I find no fault with the
impugned order. Petition stands dismissed.
:3:
[J.H.BHATIA, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for partition and separate possession was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division.
Whether valuation for jurisdictional purposes must be based on the plaintiff's claim or the defendant's evidence of total property value.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Babu Ramu Wadar
Smt. Yankmma Parsu Kalgutgi
J.H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court