Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 244 of 2018 Revisionist :- Rajni Singh Opposite Party :- Sandeepa Singh Counsel for Revisionist :- Komal Mehrotra,Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Sharma
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
This revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 23.8.2018, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in O.S. No. 977 of 2015 (Smt. Rajni Singh Vs. Smt. Sandeepa Singh).
By means of the impugned order, the issue regarding valuation was decided as preliminary issue against the plaintiff-revisionist and the valuation was fixed at Rs. 1,42,65,000/ and the court fee on the same was ordered to be paid.
A perusal of the record of the revision reveals that initially the plaint, in which a relief for cancellation of a Will deed dated 13.6.2011 was sought, was valued at Rs. 6 lacs on which the court fee of Rs. 200/ was paid. An issue No. 3 was also framed which was to the effect that whether the valuation of the suit made by the plaintiff was less. The report of the Amin was sought for by the court below which report was submitted on 17.8.2017. A copy of the Amin report is enclosed as Annexure No. 2 to this revision. The Amin had visited the property in dispute and after making enquiries from the other residents calculated the market value of the property at Rs. 1,42,65,000/. Paper No. 40-Ga/1 was the objection filed by the plaintiff to the Amin report.
By an order dated 10.5.2018, the report of the Amin was confirmed after duly considering the objections of the revisionist. In that very order of the court, 19.7.2018 was fixed for disposal of issue No.3 which was regarding valuation of the suit property. In paragraph No. 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, it is stated that on 19.7.2018 further date was fixed which was 23.8.2018 for disposal of issue No. 3. On 23.8.2018, the court considered that issue and after hearing the contention of the learned counsel for the parties fixed the valuation at Rs. 1,42,65,000/ and directed the plaintiff to file amended plaint and accordingly deposit the court fee.
The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that while deciding the issue No. 3, the court below has relied solely upon the report of Amin as the basis of arriving at a decision without looking into any other evidence. It is contended that the confirmation of Amin report ought to have been made after taking into account the evidence on record.
On the other hand, Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the Amin report was prepared in presence of the plaintiff-revisionist and, therefore, she cannot claim that she was not aware of the method adopted by the Amin in arriving at his conclusion pursuant to which the report was filed.
As is evident from the record, the Amin had prepared his report which was confirmed after considering the objection filed by the plaintiff to the Amin report by means of order dated 10.5.2018. The order confirming the report of the Amin became final for want of any challenge to the same. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the objection filed to the report of the Amin were not considered. A perusal of the objections filed by the revisionist before the court below in respect of the report of the Amin, which is enclosed as annexure No. 3 to the affidavit, reveals that a true copy of the rate list pertaining to Sector 28, obtained from the office of Sub- Registrar, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar was filed in which, the rate per sq. meter of construction with regard to super area of Sector 28, Noida has been specified at Rs. 50,000/. Further addition at the rate of 3% are provided therein for power backup, security guard, community centre, swimming pool, gym and lift. For the car parking, Rs. 3 lacs has been specified for covered parking and Rs. 1.5 lacs has been specified for open parking. A perusal of the order dated 10.5.2018 reveals that the official valuation list of Noida that was filed by the plaintiff-revisionist along with her objections was duly considered by the court below and had arrived at a conclusion that as per the notified valuation, the value of the flat in dispute in the year 2015 was Rs. 90,91,210/-. The court has observed that the circle rate cannot be the basis for valuation of the property in dispute. However, the court held that keeping in view the location of the property in dispute, the valuation made by the court Amin appeared to be justified. Thus, the order of the court below confirming the Amin report appears to be justified in the facts and circumstances mentioned therein.
In any view of the matter, the report of the Amin attained finality. After the order dated 10.5.2018 was passed, next date fixed was 19.7.2018 and thereafter 23.8.2018 was fixed, on which date, issue No. 3 was decided. It has not been specified by the revisionist that what evidence had been placed before the court below during the time of arguments pertaining to issue No. 3 that were not considered by the court below.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.8.2018 reveals that the issue was duly considered by the court below after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the suit valuation was fixed. There is no jurisdictional error in the order impugned which would merit this revision.
This revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 sfa/ Digitally signed by Justice Jayant Banerji Date: 2019.11.28 17:54:27 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad