Aggrieved by an order dated 10.10.2000 of the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, made in I.A No. 137 of 2000 appointing an Advocate Commissioner at the instance of the respondents/defendants to ascertain the market value of the suit property in O.S No. 25 of 1998 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the petitioner/plaintiff had preferred the above revision.
2. A short question that arises for my consideration in the above revision is whether the respondents/defendants are entitled to seek an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the market value of the suit property.
3. It is well settled in law that if and when the suit property is under valued, the defendant is always entitled to resist the suit alleging that the suit property is under valued and question the very jurisdiction of the Court before which the suit was laid and tried.
4. The question as to the under-valuation of the suit, no doubt, is a question of fact but, if and when such alleged under-valuation conflicts with the jurisdiction of the Court, certainly it becomes a mixed question of fact and law that requires to be set right at the earliest stage.
5. In the instant case, admittedly, the respondents/defendants questioned the valuation of the suit property as valued by the petitioner/plaintiff, but the Court failed to frame any issue in this regard. The failure of the Court in non-framing the issue as to the valuation of the suit property and the consequential question of jurisdiction of the Court, cannot be put against the respondent/defendants, nor the respondents/defendants are entitled to seek the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to prove the market value of the suit property, as the valuation of the suit property has to be satisfied by the Courts in the light of the materials placed by either side, such as documents relating to the suit property, neighbouring properties, as well as the guideline value of the Government. Therefore, while I am not inclined to approve the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the market value of the property, I am obliged to direct the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, to frame an additional issue as to the valuation of the suit property and also the consequential question of jurisdiction of the Court, and to permit the revision petitioner/plaintiff as well as the respondents/defendants to adduce evidence in that regard, in the manner known to law to establish the valuation, and decide the said issues along with other issues. If the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, comes to the conclusion on the basis of the material evidence placed by both sides that the suit property is undervalued, it is for the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, to take appropriate decision in the suit.
This revision is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P No. 18936 of 2001 is closed.
VCJ/VCS