Shri Manohar Lal Malhotra vs Mrs. Premlata Malhotra
2005 Latest Caselaw 1109 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1996 passed in Suit No. 1296/1993 by the court of Shri B.S. Mathur, Addl. District Judge whereby a decree for recovery of possession in respect of a portion of property No. 7/32, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi apart from Rs. 54,000/- on account of mesne profits and future mesne profits was passed.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit claiming to be the owners of the suit property and alleging the appellant/defendant to be a trespasser. In defense the appellant pleaded to be the co-owner of the property. He also raised objections regarding the valuation of the suit property and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The Additional District Judge, inter alia, held that the value of the suit property is Rs. 90,000/-. The respondent/plaintiff had assessed the value of the suit property at Rs. 45,000/- only. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was directed to pay the deficient court fee. The issues regarding the title of the defendant and entitlement of the plaintiff to damages were all decided in favor of the respondent/plaintiff and the suit was decreed for possession as well as for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 1,500/- per month with effect from 1.7.1991 till realisation of possession. An inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 was also permitted.

3. Although several grounds for challenging the impugned judgment has been mentioned in the memo of appeal, at the time of hearing the only ground taken up is that of valuation of the suit property and the connected question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge. The present judgment will, therefore, be limited to only considering this limited issue.

4. The relevant issue before the trial court was issue No. 3 which was as under:

"Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?"

5. The suit property consists of the ground floor comprising of one drawing room, bed room and a small room with bath room and kitchen. The plot in question measured 88 sq. yards out of which 400 sq. ft. was constructed. There is also some space by way of front and back courtyard. The predecessor of the plaintiff purchased the entire property, namely, House No. 7/32, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, a two-storey structure in 1970 for Rs. 30,000/- vide a sale deed Ex.PW1/31. The suit property is nearly half of the entire house. One important feature relevant for the purpose of valuation is that the kitchen was in common use. The respondent placed on the record before the trial court two sale deeds, Ex. PW-1/32 & Ex.PW-1/33, which are in respect of the properties of the same size lying in the same area as that of House No. 7/32, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Ex.PW-1/32 was executed on 11.3.1991 for Rs. 1,95,000/- whereas Ex.PW-1/33 was executed on 23.12.1991 for Rs. 1,85,000/-. Ex.PW-1/32 recites that the vendee had also delivered peaceful, vacant physical possession of the property to the vendee. The property under Ex.PW-1/31 was occupied by the tenant.

6. As against this the defendant produced a valuer, one Shri D.C.Bhagat, in order to substantiate his claim that the value of the property in question was not less than Rs. 10 lakh. It appears from the impugned judgment that the trial court has relied on the evidenciary value of the two sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/32 & Ex.PW-1/33, rather than on the valuer's report which, to our mind, is the correct way of dealing with the subject. The two sale deeds show the value on which similar properties could be purchased and sold at approximately the same time when the suit was filed in the same area whereas the valuer relies only on his own assessment made on the basis of cost of construct etc. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant himself has relied upon judgments, particularly, that of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Jagdish Chandra and Ors. v. Basant Kumar and Anr. reported as , in which it has been held that the value of such a suit should be equal to the market value of the property. There can be no dispute that the market value of the property can be best assessed on the basis of the instances of sale and purchase of similar properties. Even the learned counsel for the appellant does not argue that the evidenciary value and the relevance of the two sale deeds is less than the evidenciary value and relevance of the report of the valuer.

7. We find no ground to differ with the opinion of the trial court. There is no dispute that with the value of the suit as assessed by the trial court, the suit was within its pecuniary jurisdiction. As mentioned earlier, no other ground for challenging the impugned judgment has been pressed. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs.