TMI Blog1956 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been filed by Mohi Ram and others against Bansi Lal and others with the allegations that the lands in the suit had been purchased in 1950 Sambat for Rs. 155/8/- out of funds contributed by the villagers of Sangrah. For the sake of convenience, however, the name of Dhayan Singh alone was entered over it as Benamidar. After the death of Dhayan Singh, the defendants continued to hold the property in the same capacity, i.e. as Benamidars. At the time of the settlement Dhayan Singh managed to get the lands entered in his exclusive name by misrepresenting facts. The defendants prevented the plaintiffs from grazing their cattle on this land and also impounded their cattle. Hence the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they, along with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to Rs. 20,000/- or more. Thereupon an order was made by this Court directing the Senior Sub Judge, Nahan, to enquire into and report the value of the land in suit. In accordance with that order the Senior Sub Judge has submitted his report to the effect that the total value of the land in suit, along with the grass and trees standing upon it, comes to Rs. 16,490/6/6. To this report objections have been filed by the petitioners who contend that the Senior Sub-Judge was not justified in imposing a cut of 70 per cent, on the valuation arrived at by the Commissioner (Tehsildar Nahan). 8. Arguments of the learned counsel were heard yesterday; I now proceed to deliver judgment. 9. The certificate sought for cannot be granted unless thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon clearly defined and sufficient grounds is improper. It is not safe for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate report of a Commissioner whose integrity is unquestioned, whose careful and laborious execution of his task is proved by his report, and who has not blindly adopted the assertions of either party. 11. As Mr. Dalip Singh, for respondent No. 1, rightly pointed out, this ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the learned Senior Sub Judge has given good grounds for not accepting the valuation arrived at by the Commissioner. In my opinion, the Senior Sub Judge was certainly entitled to revise the valuation made by the Tehsildar Commissioner, if he felt that it was not correct. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the valuation of the trees as fixed by the Senior Sub Judge (Rs. 14,505/-) cannot be said to be unreasonable. 13. Mr. Dalip Singh, for the contesting respondents, further pointed out that we are concerned not with the value of the entire land in suit, including the trees and grass standing upon it, but only with the value of the plaintiffs' share or Interest therein. He supported his arguments by citing inter alia, - Shevantibai v. Janardhan Raghunath', AIR 1944 PC 65 (F), wherein their Lordships of the Privy Council pointed out that the High Court was correct in holding that the value of the subject-matter in dispute, on appeal to His Majesty in Council, must be taken to be the value of the share of the joint family p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement rights claimed by his clients were not of the value of Rs. 20,000/-. The total value of the land in suit, including the grass and the trees, having been found by the Senior Sub Judge to be Rs. 16490/6/6 (and that finding having been maintained by this Court) it follows that the value of the plaintiffs' share or interest therein would be very much less. Therefore, it is not possible to grant a certificate to the effect that the value of the subject-matter of the dispute is not less than Rs. 20,000/-. 15. In the alternative Mr. Paras Ram contended that the case was a fit one for appeal under Art. 133(l)(c), Constitution of India. As already pointed out, the dispute is regarding a piece of land, mostly forest, situated in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
