Delhi High Court
Satish Chand vs Deep Chand Anand & Ors. on 9 July, 2013
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% I.A. No. 8841/2005
in
CS(OS) No. 2607/1990
+ Date of Decision: 9th July, 2013
# SATISH ANAND ..... Plaintiff
! Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate
versus
$ DEEP CHAND ANAND & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan &
Mr. Aditya Garg, Advocates for
D-1 to D-3
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
By way of this application filed under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, defendant nos.1 to 3 sought rejection of the plaint in this suit
for declaration, partition and possession etc. on more than one
ground but during the course of hearing the only ground pressed
into service by the learned senior counsel for the defendants at
present was that the plaint is grossly undervalued for the purposes
of court fees and jurisdiction. Other grounds were left to be urged
at the final stage in case the plaint is not rejected now.
Initially the present suit was filed by five sisters against their
four brothers and one sister for a declaration that they were owners
of 1/10th share in the assets left by their parents. Subsequently, on
an objection being taken by the defendants that the suit for
declaration simplicitor was not maintainable the plaintiffs
amended the plaint and claimed the relief of partition as well as
possession on various properties, movable as well as immovable,
allegedly belonging to their parents. The plaint was valued, at that
time, for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at ` 23.05 lakhs
for the relief of partition being the value of half share of the
plaintiffs in the entire properties of their parents. The defendants
contested the suit.
During the pendency of the suit, all the plaintiffs arrived at
some settlement with the defendants on different occasions and as
a consequence thereof they walked out of this legal battle and
defendant no. 4, Mr. Satish Anand, who is now the sole plaintiff,
was permitted to be transposed as a plaintiff. At that stage, he had
adopted the plaint of his sisters as well as his own written
statement in which one of his pleas was that one of the properties
which his sisters had included in the plaint for partition did not
belong to their parents and, in fact, it was acquired and owned by
one Company in which he as well as his father were partners. As a
result of some family settlement in respect of that partnership firm,
that property, which was in Bombay, came to his share in lieu of
his walking out of the partnership firm and, therefore, his sisters
could not have included that property in this suit for partition.
The remaining three brothers had filed the present
application for rejection of the plaint and, as noticed already, the
rejection of the plaint at the time of hearing of the present
application was sought only on the ground that the plaint as filed
originally by the sisters was highly undervalued as far as the relief
of partition of various immovable properties of the parents of the
parties was concerned and therefore, the plaint was liable to be
rejected in case the plaint was not correctly valued.
Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the applicants-
defendants had submitted that original plaint itself was
undervalued is more than evident from the fact that after
transposition of defendant no. 4 as the plaintiff he had entered into
some Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with one Company
in respect of the property in Bombay and in that document
executed sometime in the year 2007 the value of that property was
shown to be ` 25 crores. It was further contended that since the
present plaintiff, Mr. Satish Anand, was transposed as a plaintiff in
the year 2004 he was supposed to amend the plaint by giving the
valuation of the assets of the parents of the parties as on the date of
his being transposed as a plaintiff and consequently he should be
called upon to give a correct valuation of all properties and
particularly of Bombay property keeping in view the valuation of `
25 crores fixed by himself while entering into a Memorandum of
Settlement for construction/development of that property with a
Company and upon his failure to do so the plaint should be
rejected.
This application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff.
In my view, the plaintiff at this stage cannot be called upon
to amend his plaint and that plaint cannot be rejected under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC for the reasons being pressed into service by the
applicants-defendants. It would be a question to be decided during
the trial as to whether a defendant who is transposed as a sole
plaintiff in a suit for partition is required to give a fresh valuation
of the properties sought to be partitioned as per the market value
prevalent on the date of his/her transposition as a plaintiff or
whether the old valuation given by the outgoing plaintiff would
continue to form the basis of valuation of the suit. Similarly,
whether or not the plaint was originally undervalued for the
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is a question which can be
decided only after evidence is adduced by the parties and just
because plaintiff has entered into a Memorandum of Settlement in
the year 2007 for construction of a property of ` 25 crores in
Bombay it cannot be said, without evidence, that the plaint,
initially filed in the year 1990, was undervalued. All this would be
a matter of evidence and it cannot be said hypothetically that if the
value of the property in Bombay in the year 2007 was ` 25 crores
its value in the year 1990 would have been more than the valuation
given in the plaint filed originally by the sisters. Valuation of any
property cannot be fixed by guess work and particularly when the
property is not in Delhi.
This application is, therefore, dismissed and since it appears
to have been filed to derail the proceedings it is dismissed with
costs of ` 10,000/-.
P.K. BHASIN, J
JULY 9, 2013
