Niranjan Sharma & Anr vs Sk. Matiar Rahaman
2021 Latest Caselaw 4182 Cal

                                         1




30   09.08.2021                         SA 24 of 2016
AN   Ct. No. 04
                                       SAT 414 of 2013
                    I.A. No.: CAN 1 of 2013 (Old No.: CAN 8925 of 2013) (not found)


                                     Niranjan Sharma & anr.
                                                  vs.
                                       Sk. Matiar Rahaman


                  Mr. Asit Kumar Bhattacharya                  ... for appellants


                            Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on

                  behalf of appellants and submits, there be a question of

                  law formulated regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, for

                  admission of the appeal. He submits, the suit against his

                  clients was for eviction of trespasser. Trial Court did not

                  have pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit was undervalued.

                            We have perused the trial and lower appellate

                  Courts' judgments. We find the suit was for eviction of

                  trespasser with consequential relief valued at Rs. 100/-.

                  Trial Court by judgment dated 4th June, 2011 decreed the

                  suit directing defendants to quit, vacate and deliver

                  peaceful khas possession of the suit property to plaintiff.

                  It appears from said judgment that suit property was one,

                  regarding which appellants claim to have had agreement

                  to purchase.

                            Appellants had contended that the suit should

                  have been valued as per sub-clause (a) in clause (v) of

                  section 7, West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. Both Courts

                  below returned concurrent finding that the suit was

                  correctly valued as per sub-clause (a) in clause (vi) of

                  section 7. We have ascertained that there was no issue of
                       2




fact regarding whether the suit property was land or

building or garden yielding profits, for it to be valued

under sub-clause (a) in clause (v) of section 7.

          Mr. Bhattacharya relies on view taken by a

learned single Judge of this Court in Smt. Nilima Bose

vs. Santosh Kumar Ghosh reported in AIR 1997

Calcutta 202, paragraphs 10 and 11. Said judgment was

relied upon in the lower appellate Court. Both Courts

below went into the question of valuation of the suit and

their concurrent findings do not offend the view taken

therein. He also relies on judgment of a Division Bench of

this Court in Goutam Ghosh vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd.

reported in (2010) 1 WBLR (Cal) 406. View taken is not

applicable to appellants' case as respondent/plaintiff did

not claim declaration.

No substantial question of law arises in the

appeal. It is dismissed.

SA 24 of 2016 with I.A. no.: CAN 1 of 2013 (Old

No.: CAN 8925 of 2013) (not found), if pending, are

dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)