Kishan Kumar Jain vs Praveen Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 18878 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18878 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kishan Kumar Jain vs Praveen Singh on 13 December, 2021

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 50/2021

1. Kishan Kumar Jain S/o Vijendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 42 Years, Near P.w.d. Office, Abu Road, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi

2. Udhavdas S/o Melumal, Aged About 58 Years, E-6, Bramhpuri Colony, Abu Road, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi

----Petitioners Versus Praveen Singh S/o Devi Singh, Ohida, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh and Mr. Hardik Gautam for Mr. Rakesh Arora

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

13/12/2021

The facts of case as quoted out from the record are that

respondent-plaintiff has filed civil suit for permanent injunction

against the petitioner-defendants alleging inter-alia that suit plot

measuring 1250 square feet situated in Jhanda Gali, Village

Bhanwari (Sarupganj), Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi was

purchased by plaintiff vide registered sale deeds dated

06.02.2017. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that in the suit plot

the old construction have become dilapidated, therefore, was

pulled down in order to raise new construction. The plaintiff has

further averred that when the new construction was started by

plaintiff, defendants on 03.11.2020 came at site and create

(2 of 5) [CR-50/2021]

hindrance and threatened the plaintiff that the suit plot is of

defendants and defendants would raise constructions thereupon.

The plaintiff has further averred that defendants threatened the

plaintiff to take possession of the suit plot forceably.

The cause of action has been said to be accrued on

03.11.2020 and the plaintiff has filed civil suit seeking permanent

injunction against the defendants to restrain them for not creating

any hindrance in use and occupation of suit with and as also not to

dispossess the plaintiff therefrom.

In addition to prayer for permanent injunction, the plaintiff

has also prayed that in case the defendants enter into suit plot

during the pendency of suit and raise construction, then the

decree for mandatory injunction also be passed to remove the

possession and construction of defendants, if any. The valuation of

suit has been made, for the purpose of permanent injunction

Rs.4,00/- and for the purpose of mandatory injunction Rs.400/-,

accordingly, fixed court fees of Rs.20 has been paid.

After registration of the plaint, notices were issued to the

defendants.

The defendants, instead of filing the written statements,

chose to file application under Sections 10 & 11 of the Rajasthan

Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 read with Sections 9, 15

& 21 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

By way of applications, defendants have alleged that by

perusal of the pleadings of plaint, particularly, para Nos.3, 6 & 9, it

is apparent that defendants have challenged the ownership rights

of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has to make valuation of

suit as per Section 26(a) of Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit

Valuation Act, 1961. According to Section 26(a) of Act of 1961,

(3 of 5) [CR-50/2021]

the suit for permanent injunction should have been valued as half

of the market value of the suit property and ad-valorem court fees

should be paid. The defendants have objected the valuation made

by plaintiff and the court fees paid by plaintiff and has prayed that

due to improper valuation and non payment of required court

fees, plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

The plaintiffs did not file any reply to the application and

opposed the application by way of oral arguments.

The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties has

dismissed the application of defendants, vide impugned order

dated 06.04.2001, hence this revision petition has been filed by

the defendants.

In order to deal with the objection of the petitioner-

defendants, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Section

26(a), 26(b) & 26(C) of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit

Valuation Act, 1961, which reads as under:

"26. Suits for injunction.- In a suit for injunction-

(a) where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher;

(b) where the prayer relates to the plaintiffs exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher;

(c) in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher."

(4 of 5) [CR-50/2021]

In the present case, the plaintiff is alleging his ownership

and possession over the suit plot on the basis of registered sale

deed dated 16.02.2017. The sale deed of plaintiff is not under

challenge. The averments in the plaint that defendants are

threatening the plaintiff to enter into possession and raise

construction over the suit plot, may not be treated as denial of the

title of plaintiff over the property if the plaintiff has averred that

the suit plot belongs to him and he has got permission from the

panchayat to raise construction, such averments do not lead to

inference that the plaintiff is admitting his title over the suit plot

disputed. Therefore, as per pleadings of plaint, the provision of

Section 26(a) of Act of 1961 does not attract and the valuation of

suit, made by the plaintiff under Section 26 (c) of Act of 1961 may

not be held erroneous.