Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 133 (RAJ)

Dhan Raj v. Kanhaiya Lal

2016-01-20

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 read with Order 7, and Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. It was prayed in the suit that order dated 22.04.2003 passed in file No. 467/16 and consequential patta be cancelled and consequential reliefs be granted in favour of the petitioners. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application, inter alia, indicating that the suit has been wrongly valued and along with application, filed copy of the gift deed dated 31.12.2014. It was claimed that the property in dispute has been valued at Rs. 4,62,000/- by the Sub-Registrar while registering the gift deed pertaining to the property and therefore, the valuation has been made incorrectly, and that the trial court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. A prayer was made in the application that issue be framed and market value of the property be determined and ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed/plaint be returned. 4. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and the trial court by its order impugned, came to the conclusion that the suit has been valued under Section 24(b) of the Act and under Section 7 of the Act for the purpose of valuation of market value has been given and the suit has been valued at Rs. 5,000/-. The trial court came to the conclusion that while deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC only the averments contained in the plaint can be examined and the objections regarding valuation of the suit and payment of court-fees are a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, the same can only be determined after framing of issues and evidence is led by the parties. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court fell in error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as from a bare perusal of the gift deed produced along with the application it is apparent that the property has been valued at Rs. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court fell in error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as from a bare perusal of the gift deed produced along with the application it is apparent that the property has been valued at Rs. 4,62,000/- and, therefore, besides the fact that the valuation of the suit is incorrect, the trial court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction also and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned, it was submitted that the plaintiff in the plaint has nowhere questioned the validity of the gift deed and, therefore, the averments in this regard are without any basis. 7. It is also submitted that while deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 , the documents filed by the petitioner could not be examined by the trial court and the relief as prayed in the application has in fact been granted by the trial court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the order passed by the trial court would reveal that the trial court came to the conclusion that while deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 , the documents filed by the defendants cannot be looked into. 10. The trial court noted the status of the plaint and its valuation and came to the conclusion that the objections raised by the petitioner were a mixed question of law and fact and the said aspect would be determined after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. There is substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent that so far the plaint is concerned, the challenge therein pertains to the order dated 22.04.2003 and patta issued pursuant to the same and the plaintiff has nowhere questioned the validity of the gift deed, which has formed the basis for filing of the present application. 11. There is substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent that so far the plaint is concerned, the challenge therein pertains to the order dated 22.04.2003 and patta issued pursuant to the same and the plaintiff has nowhere questioned the validity of the gift deed, which has formed the basis for filing of the present application. 11. The plea which is sought to be raised by the petitioner at this stage on the strength of the gift deed, appears to be pre-mature and the trial court was justified in deciding the application by observing that the aspects as raised by the petitioner can only be decided after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 12. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.