Allowed

Sushil S/O Dhanraj Jakotiya and Others v. Motiram S/O Bholaram Bangad and Others

Bombay HC22 Jul 2022CRA/42/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court allowed the application challenging the rejection of a plaint. The High Court held that since the suit sought relief based on the market value of the property, the plaint was undervalued at the loan amount. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to value the suit at the property's market value and pay the deficit court fee.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The suit must be valued at the market value of the 5-acre suit field. The respondents must pay the deficit court fee within eight weeks, or the plaint will

Sushil S/O Dhanraj Jakotiya and Others Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 6 956-CRA 42.2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2020 Suhil s/o. Dhanraj Jakotiya and others

¶4

vs.

¶5

Motiram s/o. Bholaram Bangad and others

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr. S. O. Ahmed, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondents.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 22/07/2022

¶9

By this revision application, the original
defendants are before this Court challenging an order
dated 03/02/2020 passed by the Civil Judge Junior
Division, Ner, District Yavatmal, whereby an
application filed by the applicants for rejection of
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code (CPC), has been rejected.

¶10

2.The respondents have filed a suit for
declaration, foreclosure, sale and recovery of amount
against the applicants in the context of a
“kabulnama”, said to have been executed by the
predecessor of the applicants in favour of the

¶11

KOLHE

¶12

2 / 6 956-CRA 42.2020

¶13

predecessor of respondents. It is claimed that by
operation of the condition specified in the
“kabulnama”, the respondents are entitled to specific
reliefs claimed in the suit.

¶14

3.According to the applicants, the
respondents wrongly valued the suit at Rs.20,000/-
i.e. the loan advanced by their predecessor to the
predecessor of the applicants and that if the prayers
made in the plaint are to be properly appreciated, in
the context of the “kabulnama”, valuation of the suit
ought to be on the market value of the property in
question i.e. 5 acres out of total of 10 acres specified
in the said “kabulnama”.

¶15

4.The application for rejection of plaint filed
on the aforesaid basis was opposed by the
respondents and it was claimed that valuation was
correctly stated in the plaint and that the application
deserved to be rejected.

¶16

5.The Court below by the impugned order
has rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the
applicants, as a consequence of which the application
stood rejected and hence, the applicants have
approached this Court.

¶17

KOLHE

¶18

3 / 6 956-CRA 42.2020

¶19

6.The learned counsel for the applicants
invited attention of this Court to the aforesaid
“kabulnama”, as well as the contents of the plaint,
particularly prayer clause (3) of the plaint to support
his contention that the suit was undervalued and
therefore, the plaint ought to be rejected on a plain
reading itself.

¶20

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted that the suit
was correctly valued, for the reason that charge on
the property was in terms of the loan advanced,
which was limited to Rs.20,000/- and a proper
interpretation of the grievance raised in the plaint,
read with prayer clause(3), particularly the
alternative prayer made therein, in the context of the
“kabulnama” would show that this was not a case of
under valuation and that therefore, the impugned
order did not deserve interference.

¶21

8.This Court has perused the “kabulanama”,
which specifies that in lieu of amount of Rs.20,000/-
taken as loan from the predecessor of the
respondents, the predecessor of the applicants had
agreed that 5 acres out of the total area of 10 acres
would not be directly sold and that if the land is
indeed sold, the entire consideration amount would

¶22

KOLHE

¶23

4 / 6 956-CRA 42.2020

¶24

be handed over and further that no Gift Deed,
Partition Deed or Mortgage would be executed in
respect of the said area of land.

¶25

9.It is the grievance of the respondents that
despite such stipulations in the “kabulanama”, a Gift
Deed dated 26/03/2018, was executed by the
predecessor of the applicants in favour of applicant
No.4 (original defendant No.4), which gave cause of
action for filing the aforesaid suit. A perusal of the
plaint shows that the respondents have prayed for
declaration that they have a charge over the suit field,
they are entitled for a declaration that the said Gift
Deed is not binding upon them, that a direction ought
to be issued to the applicants to return the charge
amount as per current market valuation of the suit
field or in default a decree for foreclosure of the suit
field be passed by selling the said field and the
amount be refunded as per current market valuation
to the respondents.

¶26

10.In the plaint, the suit is valued on the
basis of the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- as according
to the respondents that was the charge on the suit
field. But, this Court is of the opinion that
considering the specific relief at prayer clause(3) of
the plaint, or the alternative prayer, whereby the

¶27

KOLHE

¶28

5 / 6 956-CRA 42.2020

¶29

respondents have sought return of charge at current
market valuation of the suit field, the valuation of the
suit field ought to have been at the market value of
the suit field, as on the date of the filing of the suit.

¶30

11.There is substance in the contention
raised on behalf of the applicants that the suit was
undervalued. But a perusal of the impugned order
would show that the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in
the context of the specific prayers made in the plaint,
has not been appreciated in the correct perspective,
as a consequence of which the application filed by the
applicants has been erroneously rejected.

¶31

12.In view of the above, the Civil Revision
Application is allowed.

¶32

13.The impugned order is quashed and set
aside.

¶33

14.It is directed that the suit filed by the
respondents shall be valued as per the market value
of the suit field(5 acres), on the date of filing of the
suit.

¶34

15.The respondents shall pay the deficit
court fee accordingly within a period of eight weeks

¶35

KOLHE

¶36

6 / 6 956-CRA 42.2020

¶37

from today; failing which the plaint shall stand
rejected.

¶38

 JUDGE

¶39

Digitally signed byRAVIKANT CHANDRAKANT KOLHE Signing Date:26.07.2022 15:34

¶40

KOLHE

Sushil S/O Dhanraj Jakotiya and Others v. Motiram S/O Bholaram Bangad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil S/O Dhanraj Jakotiya and Others v. Motiram S/O Bholaram Bangad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarla Ukandrao Sonone Vs Zilla Parishad, Amravati Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer

Gajanan Krushnarao Sune Vs Zilla Parishad, Amravati Thr. Chief Executive Officer

Deepak Ravindra Nawathe Vs Zilla Parishad, Amravati Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer.

Durga Matsya Vyavasaya Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., through Its President, Shri Ramdhan S/O Baliram Jadha Vs the State of Mah.,Thr.Ministry of Agriculture Animal Husbandry,Diary Development and Fisheries Dept

Sayyad Khwaja Ghyasuddin Vs Sarangdhar S/O Sheshrao Tayade

Ganeshrao S/O Baburao Deshmukh @ Ganeshrao Himmatrao Deshmukh and Another Vs Sau. Suvarna Sudhirrao Deshmukh and Others