Rajasthan High CourtRatan Lal vs Roshan Lal And Ors. on 14 February, 1986Equivalent citations: 1986(1)WLN142JUDGMENT
 

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 23-5-1985 by which his application for amendment of the plaint was rejected.2. The plaintiff Ratan Lal had filed a suit against Roshan Lal and others on the allegation that he being the brother of Hira Lal had a right to pre-empt the sale made by Hira Lal in favour of the defendants Roshan Lal and Ors. in respect of a house. The house was sold, according to the averments in the sale deed for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. However, according to the plaintiff, this sale price was fictitious and in the fact, only a sum of Rs. 12,000/- had been the consideration for this sale. He also alleged that the market value of the suit house was also Rs. 12,000/- only and, therefore, he claimed the right to purchase this house on pre-emption for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. He valued the suit at Rs. 12,000/- and presented the plaint in the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur. The defendants raised an objection about the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. They moved an application underSection 31of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (here in after called 'the Act') alleging that the plaintiff has alleged that the sale price of Rs. 20,000/- was fictitious and the real price was only Rs. 12,000/- and has wanted preemption and has thus tried to avoid the consideration of Rs. 8,000/- only. The defendants further urged that in these circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 8,000/- only and if so valued, the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge and not of the District Judge. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff moved an application that if the contention of the defendants is accepted and the valuation of the suit is taken to be Rs. 8,000/- only, then the suit would become triable by Civil Judge although in the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the suit house at Rs. 12,000/- and in these circumstances, the Civil Judge would not be able to grant a decree for the possession of the house. Therefore, the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint by substituting the words.^ blfy, okn dh ekyh;r 20]000¼chl gtkj :Ik;s ½ fuf'pr djrk gwW AvkSj okn U;k;ky; 'kqYd 1065½ :Ik;s izLrqr gS A^^
 

in place of what had earlier been stated in para No. 11 after the words.^^cgsukes es tjs fcdkc 20]000½ cryk;k gS A^^3. This application was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the proposed amendment was not bonafide and was moved merely in order to retain the suit in the Court of the District Judge and avoid the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge.4. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that underSection 31of Act, the suit should be valued on the amount which the plaintiff wanted to avoid and according to the plaint it appeared that the plaintiff wanted to avoid the amount of Rs. 8,000/- only and, therefore, the court fee payable was on the sum of Rs. 8,000/- although the plaintiff had paid court fee on the sum of Rs. 12,000/-. He was further of the opinion that looked at from this view, the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Udaipur and he could not have allowed the amendment so as to bring the suit within his own jurisdiction. He, accordingly, dismissed the plaintiff's application. Hence the plaintiff has come up in revision.5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.6. Before I come to the contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be pointed out that a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether he still wants the amendment sought by the application, which has been rejected by the District Judge and the learned counsel stated that he wants the amendment and is ready to pay court fee on the sum of Rs. 20,000/-.7. For the consideration of question whether the court fee in this case was payable on the sum of Rs. 8,000/- or 12,000/- or 20,000/-, a reference toSection 31of the Act would be necessary, which reads as under:31. Pre-emption suits: In a suit to enforce a right of preemption, fee shall be computed on the amount of the consideration for the sale which the pre-emption seeks to avoid or on the market value of the property sold which ever is less.On a plain reading of this section, I am clearly of the opinion that what this section lays down is that the fee has to be computed on the amount of consideration for the sale, which a pre-emptor seeks to avoid or on the market value of the property sold which ever is less. In other words, the section means that the fee shall be computed either on the amount of the consideration of the sale mentioned in the deed of sale or on the market value of the property which ever is less. The purpose of pre-emption is that the plaintiff has to be substituted in place of the purchaser in whose favour the sale deed had been executed by the seller and thus the plaintiff avoids that sale and gets it affected in his own favour and in order to avoid that sale and get himself substituted in place of the purchaser, he files the suit. By filing such a suit, the plaintiff must be deemed to be avoiding the sale and not the consideration because he will be substituted in place of the purchaser only on the payment of the sale consideration or the market value of the property. In these circumstances, it clearly appears that the learned District Judge wholly erroneously came to the conclusion that UnderSection 31of the Court Fees Act, the suit has to be valued on the amount which the plaintiff wants to avoid. As already stated above, the plaintiff does not want to avoid the amount but wants to avoid the sale. Gramatically also the word 'sale' immediately precedes the words 'which the pre-emptor seeks to avoid' and, therefore, the clause "which the pre-emptor seeks to avoid" must govern the word 'sale' and not the word 'consideration'. This position will be clearly by taking a case where the plaintiff does not allege that the sale price is fictitious nor that the market price is less than the sale price but claims pre-emption in respect of such a sale. Here he cannot be said to be avoiding or wanting to avoid any amount of the consideration for sale and, therefore, he may not pay any court fee according toSection 31of the Act. Such a situation cannot be envisaged.8. That being so, in the present suit, the plaintiff had valued the suit, at Rs. 12,000/- which according to him was the market value of the suit property which was sold by Hira Lal to Roshan Lal and others and, therefore, the suit filed before the learned District Judge. From the interpretation, I have put onSection 31, I am unable to agree with the learned District Judge that the suit should have been valued at Rs. 8,000/- only and would be thus, within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge. Now in these circumstances, if the plaintiff warns to amend the plaint by valuing the suit at Rs. 20,000/- and paying the deficit court fee, the suit still remain triable by the same court and, therefore, the amendment sought should not have been refused on the ground (hat it was with a view to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Judge. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge was wrong in dismissing the application for amendment and has thus, refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him.9. I, therefore, allow this revision and further allow the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall file the amended plaint before the trial court within a month from today.