R.S. Chauhan, J.@mdashThe plaintiff petitioner is aggrieved by the order dt. 20.7.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the objection filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the report of the Tehsildar Sanganer (Jaipur) has been rejected and the plaintiff petitioner has been directed to deposit a Court-fees of Rs. 5,14,490/- within fifteen days. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff petitioner had filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit regarding a fort known as Sheopurgarh situated at Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, which belonged to his father the Late Rao Durga Singh. He further claimed that the defendant respondent, Prabhu Raj Singh, happen to be a relative of his. Therefore, on 01.02.1971 he allowed Prabhu Raj Singh to reside in a portion of the fort, which was marked in yellow colour in the map attached with the plaint. However, in September 2011, Prabhu Raj Singh started raising illegal construction in the adjoining property, which is marked in green in the map enclosed with the plaint. When the plaintiff objected to the illegal encroachment on part of his property, the defendant did not pay any heed to his objections. Subsequently, on 22.01.2012 Prabhu Raj Singh even brought labour into the fort in order to raise certain construction on portion marked as ABCD in the map. However, subsequently he gave up his efforts to start any encroachment. Instead, he started claiming that he is the owner of the property. But according to the plaintiff petitioner, Prabhu Raj Singh has no concern with the property. Hence the suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit. The suit was filed along with a Court-fees of Rs. 13,635/- as the plaintiff valued the disputed property at Rs. 2 lac.
2. The defendant respondent, Prabhu Raj Singh, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. stating therein that the valuation of the property is more than Rs. 2 crore. Hence the suit has been filed on deficit Court-fees. Upon his application, an inquiry has been held under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC, and under the provisions of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. The plaintiff submitted a reply to the said application and denied the averments. After hearing the arguments on the said application, by order dt. 11.02.2013 the learned Judge directed the Tehsildar, Sanganer (Jaipur) to do the valuation of the suit property and to submit his report within a period of fifteen days. Therefore, on 08.03.2013, the Tehsildar submitted his report and valued the property as Rs. 2 crore 26 lac.
3. The plaintiff petitioner submitted an objection to the report submitted by the Tehsildar. However, by order dt. 20.07.2013 the learned Judge accepted the valuation of the suit property as Rs. 2 crore 26 lac and directed the plaintiff petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,14,490/-. Hence this petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for petitioner, has contended that by order dt. 11.02.2013 the learned Judge had directed the Tehsildar to do the valuation of the "property in dispute". The term "property in dispute" was also defined as shown in the map attached in the plaint. However, the Tehsildar has exceeded the instruction given to him, and has included the part of the property marked as ABCD in the map, instead of confining himself only to the property shown in green and yellow colours in the map. According to the learned counsel, the dispute is only with regard to the property shown in green and yellow colours. The dispute does not extend to the part of the property shown as ABCD in the map. Thus, the very basis of the valuation is misplaced.
5. On the other hand Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for defendant respondent, has contended that the property was described in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint. A bare perusal of para 3 clearly reveals that the plaintiff had also spoken about part of the property marked as ABCD. Therefore, the Tehsildar was certainly justified in valuing the said part of the property as well. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge was justified in holding that part of the property shown in green and yellow colours, no measurement for the same has been given. Therefore, the learned Judge, according to the learned counsel, was justified in dismissing the objections raised by the plaintiff petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the coloured map submitted by the petitioner, which has not been questioned by the learned counsel for the defendant.
7. A bare perusal of para 3 of the plaint clearly reveals that the plaintiff had clearly claimed that the part shown in yellow was the original area leased out to the defendant respondent. However, subsequently in an area marked in green colour which was lying vacant, the defendant respondent encroached upon the same and constructed certain structures. Thus according to the plaintiff petitioner "the property in dispute" of which he is trying to seek the possession and injunction, is limited only to that part of the property shown in yellow and green colours.
8. Merely in order to show the conduct of the defendant respondent, the plaintiff petitioner did mention the fact that on 22.01.2012 the defendant had called the labourers and had tried to encroach upon part of the property marked as ABCD. However, the part marked as ABCD has neither been marked in green or yellow colours, thus, according to the plaintiff petitioner himself, the part of the property marked as ABCD is not in dispute. Even in the prayer clause the plaintiff has sought possession, permanent injunction and the mesne profit with regard to the part marked in green and yellow colours.
9. A bare perusal of the order dt. 11.02.2013 clearly reveals that the learned Judge had directed the Tehsildar to do the valuation of the "property in dispute as shown in the map attached with the plaint". Since the "property in dispute" was limited only to that portion marked in green and yellow, obviously the Tehsildar was required to do the valuation of the said structures in the area marked in green and yellow. He was not called to do the valuation of the part marked as ABCD. However, according to both the learned counsel, the Tehsildar has valued even the land marked as ABCD. Thus, obviously the Tehsildar has overstepped the brief given to him by the Court. Hence the very basis for valuation of the property is misplaced.
10. The observation made by the learned Judge that no measurement of the disputed property was given in the plaint is unjustified. For, the map, which clearly indicates the dimensions of the property in dispute, is part of the plaint. According to the map, the dimensions of the property in dispute are 47'' 3" x 57'' 4". Thus the plaintiff petitioner had clearly indicated the dimensions of the property in dispute.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court sets aside the impugned order dt. 20.07.2013 and accepts the application filed by the plaintiff petitioner under Sec. 151 C.P.C. and directs the Court to instruct the Tehsildar to do the valuation of "the property in dispute" marked in the map in green and yellow colours only, the measurements of which are mentioned hereinabove. The payment of the Court-fees shall be decided only after receiving the Tehsildar''s report with regard to the property in dispute as mentioned hereinabove. This petition is hereby allowed.
