Case Note & Summary
The appellant, original defendant, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for possession filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs). The suit property consisted of three rooms in Kolhapur. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appeal was dismissed. In the second appeal, two substantial questions of law were formulated: (i) whether the issue of valuation under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 ought to have been adjudicated by the Senior Division Court, and (ii) which article of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Articles 64, 65, or 113) applies. The High Court held that the valuation issue does not oust jurisdiction and is not a substantial question of law. On limitation, the court held that since the suit was based on title, Article 65 applies, requiring the plaintiff to prove title and the defendant to prove adverse possession. The concurrent findings were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Valuation - Section 14(1) Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 - The issue of valuation of the suit property for court fees and jurisdiction is not a jurisdictional issue that ousts the court's power to try the suit; it is a matter to be decided by the trial court and does not constitute a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. (Paras 2, 6)
B) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Articles 64, 65, 113 Limitation Act, 1963 - In a suit for possession based on title, Article 65 applies, requiring the plaintiff to prove title and the defendant to prove adverse possession for 12 years; Article 64 applies only when possession is based on previous possession, and Article 113 is a residuary article not applicable when specific articles exist. (Paras 2, 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the issue of valuation under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 ought to have been adjudicated upon by the Senior Division Court, and whether Article 65 or Article 64 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the suit for possession.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court and trial court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 65 of Limitation Act
- 1963 applies to suits for possession based on title
- Section 14(1) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- 1959 does not oust jurisdiction of court if valuation not decided
- substantial question of law must be formulated under Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 63
Second Appeal No. 453 of 2016 with Civil Application No. 920 of 2016
Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the Appellant/Applicant, Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar for the Respondents
Sharad Krishnaji Kulkarni
Dr. Atul Sadashiv Kulkarni, Smt. Madhavi Sadashiv Kulkarni, Sou. Amita Pranish Deshigar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent judgments in a suit for possession of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and trial court which decreed the suit for possession in favor of the respondents.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the concurrent findings on grounds of valuation and limitation.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit on 7th September 2013; first appellate court dismissed appeal on 20th January 2016.
Issues
Whether the issue of valuation under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 ought to have been adjudicated by the Senior Division Court?
Whether Article 65 or Article 64 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the suit for possession?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the suit was undervalued and should have been tried by the Senior Division Court, and that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 64 or 113.
Respondents contended that the suit was based on title, Article 65 applies, and valuation is not a jurisdictional issue.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for possession based on title, Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, and the issue of valuation under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 does not constitute a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant (original defendant) has impugned the judgment and decree dated 20th January, 2016...
Whether the issue as to question of valuation of the subject matter of the suit ought to have been adjudicated upon by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur in which the original suit was instituted in view of Section 14 (1) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959?
Whether Article 65 or Article 64 or Article 113 of Schedule I appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 would attract in the present case?
Procedural History
The respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 672 of 2012 for possession. The trial court decreed the suit on 7th September 2013. The appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 391 of 2013, which was dismissed on 20th January 2016. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959: Section 14(1)
- Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 64, 65, 113
