This is a civil revision application challenging an order in a partition suit. The High Court found no irregularity in the trial court's finding that the suit was properly valued, thereby dismissing the revision.
Revision application dismissed with costs in the revision.
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
SNS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2010
Changdev S. Jagtap and Ors. v.
Ankush C. Jagtap and Ors.
...Applicants.
...Respondents.
Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis, adv. For the Applicants.
CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
P.C.
1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. Suit for partition was filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs wherein they had valued the suit at Rs.96,656/- being value of
their 1/4th share in the suit property. Besides, valuation of the construction, valuation of the land on the basis of land revenue was also made. Court-fee was paid accordingly. Defendant nos.1 to 4, who are the applicants before this Court contended that value of the property was more than Rs.6 lacs and value of 1/4th share of the plaintiff is Rs. 1,50,000/- or more and, therefore, the Civil Judge Junior Division has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court and evidence was also led by the parties. Plaintiffs had valued the suit on the basis of two valuation certificates issued by the Sub-
2
registrar. Value of one part of the property is shown to be Rs.1,72,655/-
and the value of the remaining part to be Rs.2,13,971/-. Total value of the property as per both certificates was Rs.3,86,626 and, therefore, value of 1/4th share of the plaintiff was calculated at Rs.96,656/-. Subregistrar was examined before the Court and he deposed that he had given valuation certificates on the basis of ready reckoner applicable to that area. The trial Court discussed the evidence at length and came to conclusion that the suit is properly valued.
not see any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, revision application stands dismissed.
(J.H. BHATIA,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction is legally sustainable.
Changdev S. Jagtap and Ors.
Ankush C. Jagtap and Ors.
J.H. BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
