Ramgovind Prasad and Others vs Muni Tiwari and Others

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Heard. Defendant No. 19 executed registered sale deeds dated 5.8.1980 and 21.5.1982 in respect of Schedule C lands to the plaintiffs, who are respectively husband and wife. Simultaneously on the same date, when the two sale deeds were executed, plaintiffs also executed agreement to reconvey the aforesaid 74-1/2 decimals land to defendant No. 19 within the stipulated period.

Plaintiffs filed the present suit against defendant No. 19 and other transferees from him for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in the alternative for recovery of possession, and for declaration of the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 19 in favour of defendants 1 to 18 and 20 to 23 and others in respect of the suit land to be null and void.

Plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 5,102/-whereas defendants 8 to 14 claimed that valuation of the suit land with pucca structure was more than Rs. 5,00,000/-. During pendency of the suit, defendants 8 to 14 filed a petition (Annexure 2) to call for a report from the District Registration Office, Garhwa, in respect of valuation of the suit land.

On the direction of the trial Court, both parties adduced evidence, oral and documentary on valuation matter.

By order impugned dated 30.3.2001, trial Court rejected the aforesaid petition dated 24.7.1995 (Annexure 2) filed by defendants 8 to 14 and held that the suit valuation put by plaintiffs was not inadequate and was correct and the suit was triable by the Court of Munsif, Garhwa.

Defendants produced the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 19 in their favour, which were marked Exhibits A to A/6. Those deeds were under challenge in the suit. They miserably failed to produce any sale deed of the relevant period executed in respect of the similarly situated lands.

Trial Court on the basis of materials brought on record, came to conclusion that defendants filed to prove that the suit valuation given by plaintiffs was less than the market value thereof. It could not have, therefore, been said that the suit was grossly undervalued.

In such circumstance, in exercise of power u/s 115 of Civil Procedure Code, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Revision application dismissed.