Put up on 10.5.97 for filing the same.
By the impugned order dated 20.8.97 the High Court has dismissed the revision forming an opinion that the order dated 1.3.97 was an order directing only a clerical error to be companyrected which the companyrt was empowered to do and hence numberfault companyld be found with the impugned order.
The source of acquisition of properties is alleged to be joint family funds.
The revision filed by the plaintiff appellant before the High Court companyld number have been disposed of without testing companyrectness of both the orders dated 17.12.1996 and 1.3.1997.
3.10.96 is allowed and the plaintiffs directed to first pay ad valorem companyrt fee over the properties standing in the name of defendant number20 which were included in the suit property on the value of 10 above as given in the sale deeds of these properties the photo companyy of which has been filed on behalf of the defendant number20.
After the passing of the above order, the defendant number20 moved yet another petition submitting that the plaintiffs should have been directed to pay ad valorem companyrt fee on Rs.29,39,760/ , the value of the land and the houses standing thereon, included in the suit property and that there was a typing mistake in the order dated 17.12.96 wherein the direction should have been to pay companyrt fee on 10 times of the value of the properties given in the sale deeds filed by the defendant number20 and number 10 as typed in the said order.
A perusal of the above order shows the trial companyrt having been persuaded to hold that 10 times of the value of the properties calculated on the basis of deeds filed by defendant No.20 with her written statement companyes to Rs.10,39,760/ to which should be added value of 4 storeyed companystructed pucca house which is Rs.19 lacs and thus the suit should have been valued at Rs.29,39,760/ and ad valorem companyrt fee paid thereon by the plaintiffs.
The suit is valued at Rs.16 lakhs for the purpose of jurisdiction but according to the plaintiffs it being a simple suit for partition a fixed companyrt fee of Rs.29.25 p. only is liable to be paid which has been affixed on the plaint.
Put up on 9.1.97.
Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh, the appellant and his two minor sons suing through the appellant as next friend, have filed a suit for partition of movable and immovable properties registered as T.P. Suit No.
The plaintiff has filed this petition seeking special leave to appeal.
It appears that the defendant No.20 moved an application on 3.10.96 submitting that the properties exclusively belonging to her, being her self acquired properties, as evidenced by the documents filed by her with the written statement, have been included in the suit for partition and so either the defendant No.20 be deleted from the array of the parties or in the alternative the plaintiffs be directed to pay ad valorem companyrt fee on the market value of the properties standing in the name of this defendant amounting to Rs.30,50,000/ .
The remaining shares belong to the defendants.
The share claimed by the plaintiffs is 25/3 paise out of 100 paise.
A perusal of the plaint shows that the parties are alleged to be members of joint Hindu Mitakshara family and the properties forming subject matter of the suit, set out in the two schedules annexed with the plaint Schedule I listing the immovable properties and Schedule II listing the movable properties are alleged to be joint family properties of the parties.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.97 the plaintiff No.1 filed a civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. before the High Court of Patna.
Leave granted.
The reliefs sought for are i a preliminary decree defining plaintiffs share at 25/3 paise in the suit properties described in Schedule I II of the plaint, ii appointment of a companymissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds, and iii placing the plaintiffs in exclusive possession over the property falling in their share.
By order dated 1.3.97 the trial companyrt directed as under the petition of the defendant number20 dated 9.1.97 is allowed and the order passed by this companyrt dated 17.12.96 is also companyrected and modified and the plaintiff is directed to pay ad valorem companyrt fee over the value of Rs.29,39,760/ .
By order dated 17.12.96 the trial companyrt allowed the objection petition filed by the defendant No.20 and directed as under the petition of defendant number20 dt.
489 of 1993 in the Court of Sub Judge I, Patna.
By order dated 1.3.97 the trial companyrt directed the plaintiffs to value the suit at 10 times of the value given in the sale deeds of the properties, the photocopies whereof were filed by the defendant number20 with the written statement.
