Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 530 (CAL)

Payal Barat v. Sarmila Sen

2013-07-31

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2013
JUDGMENT : Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. Challenge is to the Order No. 38 dated May 2, 2013 passed by the learned First Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No. 15 of 2010. The matter in dispute is with regard to the valuation as assessed by the Valuer appointed in the suit in respect of a flat situated at 8/2A, Alipore Park Road under P.S. Alipore, Calcutta-700027. Such valuation is required to be determined for effecting partition according to the decree. The Valuer has determined by the valuation of the flat in question to the tune of Rs. 56 lakh, but, being aggrieved by such valuation, the defendant/petitioner herein has filed this application. 2. Having due regard to the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that a report from the Office of the Registrar of Assurance, Calcutta has been obtained, which shows that the present market value of the flat in question is to the tune of Rs. 1,23,44,400/- as on September 15, 2012. 3. Mr. A.C. Kar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that since the judgment and decree was passed on August 30, 2011, the valuation of the flat should be considered on that date. 4. With due respect to him, I am of the view that such contention of Mr. Kar cannot be accepted because the valuation of the property in question should be taken when the Court passed the order that the flat in question is not partiable and the learned Trial Judge passed orders for reassessment of the valuation by the order dated May 2, 2013 and not before. Certain deeds have been filed which relate to the date of July 6, 2012 and another deed dated January 29, 2012. Since reassessment of the valuation has been directed on May 2, 2013, in my view, the valuation of the fiat in question should be taken up as on that day. Accordingly, the impugned order needs to be modified and the Valuer should be directed to take into consideration of the valuation of the property as on the date of order, i.e., on May 2, 2013. The impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. So far as the determination of the valuation is concerned, the impugned order should be modified accordingly. Accordingly, the impugned order needs to be modified and the Valuer should be directed to take into consideration of the valuation of the property as on the date of order, i.e., on May 2, 2013. The impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. So far as the determination of the valuation is concerned, the impugned order should be modified accordingly. The Valuer is directed to ascertain the market value of the flat in suit as on May 2, 2013, i.e., the current valuation afresh and he shall do the needful to reassess the current value of the flat in question. The impugned order is modified to that extent. 6. He shall submit a report as to the valuation within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to him. 7. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.