Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Revn.No. 4 of 1968

Advocates

R.Ghosh
A.M.Lodh

Judges

R.S.Bindra

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Surjyabali (respondent No. 1), filed Title Suit No. 42 of 1966 seeking a declaration of title as a co-owner to the extent of one-third share in specified land and for possession by partition. He valued the suit at Rs. 600 for jurisdictional purposes. The defendant, Shiogobinda Tribedi (petitioner), contended that the total value of the land was Rs. 20,000 and that the jurisdictional value of the suit should be determined by the value of the entire property, arguing that the Munsiff at Dharmanagar (who could try suits up to Rs. 4,000) therefore lacked jurisdiction.

The Munsiff framed a preliminary issue: "Is the suit properly valued & has this Court pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?" Two Commissioners were appointed, numerous witnesses examined, and documents were relied upon. By order dated 14-12-1967 the Munsiff found the total value of the land and buildings to be Rs. 6,000, assessed the plaintiff's one-third share at Rs. 2,000 and held that he had jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the defendant filed a revision petition under paragraph 34 of the Tripura (Courts) Order, 1950, which led to this opinion of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the revision petition under para 34(1) of the Tripura (Courts) Order, 1950, was competent — in particular whether the Court of the Judicial Commissioner could entertain revision on the ground that an important question of law or jurisdiction was involved.
Whether, for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court in a suit by a co-owner for declaration of title to his share and for partition, the jurisdictional value should be the value of the plaintiff's share or the value of the whole property.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Defendant's) Arguments — Shri R. Ghosh

The jurisdictional value of the suit should correspond to the value of the entire property in dispute (Rs. 20,000 as alleged by the defendant) rather than the value of the plaintiff's one-third share.
On that basis, the Munsiff at Dharmanagar would lack pecuniary jurisdiction (his jurisdictional limit being Rs. 4,000) and the revision raises an important question of law requiring consideration by this Court.
Cited authority: Rajani Kanta v. Raja Bala Dasi (AIR 1925 Cal 320) in support of the proposition that the value of the whole property determines jurisdictional value.

Respondent's (Plaintiff's) Arguments — Shri A. M. Lodh

Raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition was not competent; the Court found this objection without merit.
Contended (as reflected in authorities cited for the plaintiff) that the jurisdictional value in partition/declaration suits corresponds to the value of the plaintiff's share, not the whole property; cited Bhairab Chandra v. Sat Narain (AIR 1953 Pat 342).
Observed that other High Courts are unanimous in favor of valuing the plaintiff's share for jurisdictional purposes and that there was no binding pronouncement of this Court on the point.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Indrajit v. Bhaja, AIR 1969 Orissa 257	High Court may interfere in civil revision where question of jurisdiction is involved (e.g., undervaluation leading to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of lower court).	The Court relied on this authority to hold the revision competent because the petition raised a jurisdictional question: whether the Munsiff had jurisdiction if the whole property value governed valuation.
Rajani Kanta v. Raja Bala Dasi, AIR 1925 Cal 320	Calcutta High Court's view that the entire value of the property (not just plaintiff's share) determines jurisdictional value in partition-like suits.	The opinion considered this authority but noted it was in conflict with the majority view of other High Courts and did not adopt it as correct for the present matter.
Bhairab Chandra v. Sat Narain, AIR 1953 Pat 342	Patna High Court's holding that the value of a partition suit for jurisdictional purposes is the value of the plaintiff's share, not the whole property.	The Court cited and relied on this authority as reflecting the majority approach and supporting the conclusion that the plaintiff's share determines jurisdictional value.
Shevantibai v. Janardhan, AIR 1944 PC 65 (Privy Council)	Interpretation of Section 110 CPC: value of subject-matter in dispute is the plaintiff's share; title to a share does not convert the subject-matter into the whole estate merely because a finding in favour may lead to partition.	The Court accepted the Privy Council's observations (though in context of Section 110) as analogous and persuasive in concluding that the plaintiff's share is the subject-matter for valuation.
Mohd. Mushtaq v. Bagridan, AIR 1952 All 413	Allahabad High Court held that a partition suit must be valued under Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act according to the value of the plaintiff's share.	The Court cited this decision as further support for the proposition that the plaintiff's share controls valuation and jurisdictional determination.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in a stepwise fashion:

Competence of Revision: The Court first addressed whether the revision petition under para 34(1) of the Tripura (Courts) Order, 1950, was maintainable. It found the petition competent because para 34(1) permits the Court of the Judicial Commissioner to call for records where an important question of law or custom requires consideration and because the case also fell within sub-clause (a) of para 34(1) (which permits interference where a subordinate court appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or with material irregularity). The Court compared para 34(1)(a) with Section 115 CPC and found the textual difference immaterial to the present question.
Narrowing of the contest: The Court observed that the petitioner did not press his challenge to the Munsiff’s factual valuation of the property (Rs. 6,000) and accepted that valuation as established by evidence led before the trial Court. Consequently, the legal question to decide was narrowed to whether the jurisdictional valuation of the plaintiff's suit should be based on his share or on the whole property's value.
Review of Authorities: The Court examined the relevant authorities. It acknowledged the Calcutta High Court's decision in Rajani Kanta (AIR 1925 Cal 320) supporting whole-property valuation but noted that the Patna High Court (Bhairab Chandra) and other High Courts had taken the contrary view. The Court considered the Privy Council's decision in Shevantibai v. Janardhan (AIR 1944 PC 65) — although concerned with Section 110 CPC — as analogous and persuasive because it held that the subject-matter in dispute is the plaintiff's share, not the entire joint estate.
Weight of authority and principle: The Court concluded that the preponderance of judicial authority favored valuing the plaintiff's share. It further reasoned on principle that in a suit for declaration of title to and partition of a plaintiff's share, the subject-matter in dispute is that share; establishing the plaintiff's title would not, by itself, convert the subject-matter into the whole estate simply because partition might follow.
Conclusion on jurisdiction: Given the above, the Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the whole property value should determine pecuniary jurisdiction. The Munsiff's conclusion that the plaintiff's one-third share had a value of Rs. 2,000 (based on the Munsiff's Rs. 6,000 valuation of the whole property) meant the suit fell within the Munsiff's pecuniary jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court dismissed the revision petition. The core ruling is summarized as:

DISMISSED

Implications:

The direct effect is that the Munsiff's order (valuing the whole property at Rs. 6,000 and the plaintiff's one-third share at Rs. 2,000) stands and the Munsiff had competent pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.
The Court affirmed the prevailing principle (supported by a preponderance of authorities and by analogy to the Privy Council's interpretation) that the jurisdictional value in suits for declaration of title to and partition of a plaintiff's share is determined by the value of the plaintiff's share, not the entire property.
No new precedent of this Court was laid down; the Court explicitly noted the point was purely legal and had not been previously covered by this Court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Disposition: Revision dismissed.

Show full summary ...

Shiogobinda Tribedi v. Surjyab Ali Tribedi

The facts relevant to the revi sion petition filed by the defendant Shiogobinda Tribedi under para 34 of the Tripura (Courts) Order, 1950, hereinafter called the order, can be set out in a few words. The plaintiff Surjyabali, the res pondent No. 1, filed Title Suit No. 42 of 1966 against the present petitioner and the respondent No. 2 for declaration of his title in the land in dispute as a co-owner to the extent of one-third share and for possession by partition of the land re presenting his share. He happened to fix the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 600. Shiogobinda pleaded that the total value of the land r dispute was Rs. 20,000, that the jurisdictional value of the suit must correspond to the value of the entire land involved, and that in consequence the Munsiff at Dharmanagar, in whose Court the suit had been filed, had no jurisdiction in the matter since he could try suits only upto the value of Rs. 4000.

2. The Munsiff formulated the follow ing preliminary issue respecting the con troversy just stated:

"Is the suit properly valued t&d has this Court pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?"

The Munsiff appointed two Commissioners and the parties examined a large number of witnesses and relied upon certain documents in support of their contentions relevant to the preliminary issue order dated 14-12-1967, the Munsiff held that the total value of the land in suit plus the buildings standing on it is Rupees 6000, that in consequence the value of the suit comes to Rs. 2000, representing one-third share of the plaintiff in the property, and that as such he had jurisdic tion to try the suit Aggrieved by that order of the Munsiff, the defendant Shiogobinda has come up in revision to this Court.

3. Shri A. M. Lodh, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, raised the preliminary objection, at the very outset of the hear ing, that the revision petition is not com petent. I have found this objection to be without merit. Clause (I) of para 34 of the order provides inter alia that the Court of the Judicial Commissioner may call for the record of any case which ,has been decided by a Civil Court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies to it, if on an application made to it the Court of the Judicial Commissioner is of the opinion that there is an important question of law or custom involved and such question re quires further consideration. Shri R. Ghosh contended for the petitioner that the instant revision petition raises an im portant question of law relating to the determination of the jurisdictional value of a suit filed by a co-owner for declara tion of his title to the property jointly owned and for possession by partition of his share, and that such question requires consideration at the hands of this Court for the double reason that there is no pronouncement of this Court on the matter and that there is conflict of opinion be tween the other High Courts in India thereon. Shri A. M. Lodh was not in a po sition to cite any pronouncement of this Court covering the point in issue, nor could he deny that there is judicial diver gence between the other High Courts on that point. Hence, I hold that the revi sion is clearly maintainable as it raises a question which falls within the ambit of Para 34(1) of the Order.

4. The same conclusion can be reached on the basis of sub-clause (a) of Cl. (I) of Para 34. That sub-clause is to the effect that the Court of Judicial Commissioner can interfere in revision if the Civil Court, by which the cause was decided, appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity. Since the total value of the property in dispute was ad judged at Rs. 6000/- by the Munsiff, and since his jurisdiction is confined to suits of the value of Rs. 4000/-, if this Court accepts the contention of Shri Ghosh, namely, that in the suits of present nature the jurisdictional value would be the value of the entire property involved and not of the value of the share of the plain tiff therein, the question of jurisdiction would surely be involved. The provi sions of sub-clause (a) of Cl. (1) of Para 34 of the Order are almost identical with the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The only difference Is that whereas in Cl. (c) of Section 115 the two expressions "material irregularity" and "illegality" are used, in sub-clause (a) of Para 34(1) the second expression is con spicuous by its omission. However, that difference Has no relevancy to the point that arises for determination in the pre sent petition for revision.

It was held in the case of Indrajit v, Bhaja, AIR 1969 Orissa 257, that if a civil revision filed by the defendant involves a question of jurisdiction, e.g., where the suit had been undervalued and on proper valuation being determined the lower Court, viz., Munsiff, would not have the pecuniary jurisdiction and the suit would be triable by the Subordinate Judge, it is open to the High Court to interfere in revision. Exactly similar is the conten tion raised before me on behalf of the defendant-petitioner. Therefore, I hold that the revision petition is competent.

5. Though it is mentioned in the peti tion that the Munsiff had gone wrong in assessing the value of the property in dis pute at Rs. 6000/- as against the value of Rs. 20,000 placed on it by the defendant-petitioner, Shri Ghosh did not press this point at the hearing. He very fairly con ceded that the valuation fixed by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led before it could not legitimately be challenged in the revision petition. Therefore, I am left to determine only one question namely, whether the jurisdictional value of the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 shall be fixed on the basis of the value of his share in the property in dispute or on the basis of the value of the whole of the property. Shri Ghosh could cite only one authority in support of his contention. It is re ported in AIR 1925 Cal 320, Rajani Kanta v. Raja Bala Dasi. In the opinion of the Calcutta High Court, it is the entire value of the property in dispute and not the share of the plaintiff in that property which would go to determine the juris dictional value of the suit. However, Shri Ghosh conceded that the rest of the High Courts in India are unanimous on the point that the jurisdictional value of parti tion suits represents the value of the plaintiff's share in the property in dispute and not the value of the property as a whole. Shri A. M. Lodh cited the latest case on the point in issue which is report ed in AIR 1953 Pat 342, Bhairab Chandra v. Sat Narain.

The Patna High Court held, dissenting from the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajani Kanta, AIR 1925 Cal 320 (supra), that the value of a suit for partition for the purpose of jurisdiction is the value of the share claimed by the plaintiff and not the value of the whole property of which partition Is sought. The High Court relied upon a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Shevantibai v. Janardhan, AIR 1944 PC 65, in support of its conclusion. The ob servations made by the Privy Council in that case relate actually to the interpretation of Section 110 of the Civil Pro cedure Code. However, the facts of that case do bear analogy to the point which was debated before the Patna High Court The plaintiff of the case before the Privy Council was an assignee of the purchaser from a member of a joint Hindu family of one-sixth share in the joint family property, and he sued for partition of the family property and to have his one-sixth share allotted to him. The value of the interest which the plaintiff claimed was much below Rs. 10,000 though the total value of the joint family property ex ceeded that figure. When the plaintiff moved an application before the High Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council his application was turned down on the ground that the value of his share in the property being less than Rs. 10,000, the subject-matter of the appeal was below the minimum value prescrib ed by Section 110, Civil P. C,

This finding of the High Court was challenged before the Privy Council but without success. The Privy Council held that the conclusion of the High Court that the subject-matter in dispute on ap peal to His Majesty in Council must be taken to be the value of the share of the joint Family property in respect of which the plaintiff was claiming was unassail able. The Privy Council observed fur ther that the question as to the title of the plaintiff to the share which he claim ed in the joint property did not become a question respecting the whole of the joint family estate merely because if his title was established it would result in the joint family estate being partitioned. I am in agreement with the Patna High Court that these observations of the Privy Council are quite relevant to the decision of the point involved in the present revi sion petition.

6. Allahabad High Court held In the case of Mohd. Mushtaq v. Bagridan, AIR 1952 All 413, that a suit for partition of the plaintiff's share must be valued for purpose of jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act according t the value of the share of the plaintiff and not of the whole of the property involved.

7. It would follow from the above dis cussion of the various authorities that the preponderance of judicial authority is against the view taken by Calcutta High Court. On principle, it looks obvious that the subject-matter of the dispute in a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff's share hi the common property and posses sion of that share by partition is that share and not the whole property. Hence, the proposition canvassed by Shri Ghosh cannot be sustained either on authority or on principle.

8. In the result, the revision petition fails and so is dismissed. Since the point involved was purely legal and not covered by any authority of this Court, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.

Revision dismissed.

Shiogobinda Tribedi v. Surjyab Ali Tribedi

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Defendant's) Arguments — Shri R. Ghosh

Respondent's (Plaintiff's) Arguments — Shri A. M. Lodh

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Shiogobinda Tribedi v. Surjyab Ali Tribedi

Comments