Khatib Mohammad Siddiqui Mohammad Yusuf Vs Salim Sadroddin Khatib and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Khatib Mohammad Siddiqui Mohammad Yusuf Vs Salim Sadroddin Khatib and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court correctly determined that it has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain R.C.S. No. 17/2023 — i.e., whether the valuation of a suit concerning agricultural, revenue-assessable land should be taken on the basis of revenue assessment (80 times thereof for relief of possession) under Section 6(V) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act rather than on market value — so that the plaint need not be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C.

Court's answer

Where the suit property is agricultural and revenue-assessable, the revenue assessment is the relevant basis for valuation of the suit, and for relief of possession the valuation would be 80 times such revenue assessment; accordingly this Court finds no perversity in the findings of the learned trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

The coordinate-bench judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner (Pushparaj Surajprasad Modh, 2000(4) ALL MR 831) does not deal with the present issue — the issue involved therein was valuation of the suit depending upon the nature of relief claimed — and therefore does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pecuniary jurisdiction — suit on agricultural land — valuation on revenue-assessment basis upheld. The petitioner, defendant in R.C.S. No. 17/2023, had challenged the trial Court's refusal to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C., contending that market value of the agricultural land ought to be considered. The High Court (Aurangabad Bench) holds that there is no dispute that the suit property is agricultural land and that Section 6(V) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act applies; for agricultural, revenue-assessable property the revenue assessment (Rs. 10.35) is the relevant valuation basis, and for relief of possession the suit valuation is 80 times thereof (Rs. 828/-). Finding no perversity in the trial Court's conclusion that it has pecuniary jurisdiction, and noting that the coordinate-bench precedent relied on by the petitioner (Pushparaj Surajprasad Modh v. Sayyad Altaf Sayyad Wazir & Ors, 2000(4) ALL MR 831) concerned valuation dependent on the nature of relief claimed and did not deal with this issue, the writ petition is dismissed.

2024:BHC-AUG:28199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 3785 OF 2024

Khatib Mohammad Siddiqui Mohammad Yusuf

VERSUS

Salim Sadroddin Khatib And Others

Mr. Uttam Telgaonkar and Nitin Telgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29^th NOVEMBER, 2024

PER COURT :-

Petitioner here is defendant in suit. He has filed objection before the trial Court in R.C.S. No.17/2023 with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court to try and entertain the suit. Thus, an application was moved under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C. for return of the plaint.

Learned trial Court after considering the subject matter of the suit and the valuation of the suit property has recorded findings that the suit property is agricultural land and revenue assessable property. It is held that the revenue assessment is Rs. 10.35 and in case of relief of

1 of 3

901-WP- 3785-2024.odt

possession thereof, the valuation of suit would be 80 times of the revenue assessment i.e., Rs. 828/-. It is thus held that the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in respect of an agricultural land and possession thereof, market value of the land is required to be considered to know revenue assessment. He was unable to show any binding precedent to indicate so. He however, places reliance on Pushparaj Surajprasad Modh Versus Sayyad Altaf Sayyad Wazir & Ors 2000(4) ALL MR 831 to support his submissions.

There is no dispute about the fact that the suit property is agricultural land and Section 6(V) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act, applies to the instant case. Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the nature of the suit property and it is held that in respect of agricultural and revenue assessable property, the revenue assessment would be relevant for the purpose of valuation of the suit. Since, the possession of the agricultural land is sought would be 80 times of such revenue assessment, this court finds no perversity in the said findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner cited supra of the coordinate bench does not deal with this

2 of 3

901-WP- 3785-2024.odt

issue. The issue involved therein was as to the valuation of the suit depending upon nature of relief claimed. As such, this judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

Having regard to the afore stated facts, there is no merit in the challenge to the impugned order. Hence petition stands dismissed.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

bsj

3 of 3

901-WP- 3785-2024.odt