COURT OF IUDIC4.TIJSE Al ^sj^ ^RPTTIS CHHAm< uva P^yiSION NQ. _$' 6 'n'h11^ iyiE; ^2005 1] Fvllnso, W/o. Late Rupan Uraon, •'"" Aged about 65 years, Occupation- ». n ^i . ^// ^w ^w 7^/ A-' / •J<-(\? /^•? .??" .<.^ ^ T^rrs Jt ^3' ^ -*1 Lutu S/o. Late Rupan, Aged about 45 years.. Occupation- Agficuiture Nagfciya S/o. Late Rupan, Aged about 42 years, Occupation- AgFicuIture Mahavir S/o. Late Rupan, Aged about 35 years, Occupacion- Agriculture 5}- Jose S/'o. Late Rupan, Aged about 32 Ail above R/o. Village Lau, P.S. & Tahsil Rajpur, Dis®,Surguja (C.G.) ^ la1o S/o. Punai, Aged about 60 years, Occupation- Agriculture R/o. 'Village Lau, F.S. & Tahsil Rajpur, Distt. Surguja /r^ n ^\^,'>L3./S State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Coilector,. Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) FETITIQN U/S. 115 OF CODE OF qVIL XI-HC-22 STI^T^iT {S:IR'311^T »*<!<»>Hf?(T ShHW 'S^ -^WWf, ©Tn'H'IS,fsfdl^y ^ ^....C..^..Afe.|.o&' 3n^T?T^RR^lW 22/03/2005 Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsf Shri J.D.Bajpai, G.A. forthe Heard. The applicant has preferret) dated 21/02/2005 passed by IVth Ci^ 12-A/2005 and by which two and r^arding the objection of limita)| Learned counsel for the plaintiff for partition and possessior) revenue records. The defendant contentions and objected to the the suit with regard to limitation. However, the trial Court afte)' of the defendants held that by the 1(1 in aooordance with Section 7(v) A that after the death of the father accordingly, suit for partition and applicant submits that the suit is as per the judgment reported in 19S fil4d Chamar Rai, the plaintiff ought to value ofthe suit property. He further submits that the agricultural land and the plaintiffs ar^ 1 have heard the oounsel for | The oase law relied upon t>j and the law laid down is contrary applicants wherein it is held that th^ a lanrl rBveni is payinQ Isnri fnr hnth «hi<ifa41-i*iiticiT?'tei^)'<R]t<[< ^3l1^T3l1^r is^l for the applicants. $tate. this revision against the impygned order P Judge Class II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. prelin|iinary issues regarding valuation of the suit fon has tieen decided against the applicant. ap^licant submits that the suit was filed by the with respect to the suit property as per the in his written <statement denied all the valijation put by the plaintiff and also challenged framing preliminary issues on the objection ii|npugned order, the suit was properiy valued |if the Court Fees Valuation Act and the faot of] the applicants, the dispute had started and pijissession was filed. Learned oounsel for the for partition ahd separate possession and »$0MPVM Vol. 2 Note No. 22 Btwmati Vs. have valued the suit on the basis of market hbuse is situated on the land in question is the not seeking partition fhe applicants. the counsel for the applicants is of no help fo what is submitted by the counsel for the legislature intended that the market value of Ithp rlai ICBS will hg (hp san-ip i e 2fUinaes.the _«t^r) .^B%XI-HC-22 ^A^"'•-,•."' :338?':'' ••• 3II^T?iT R-ii* sii^r *Ki*tiftd > 3^''wn?w, aTiifl'iia, <:nwTTai*<i<o ;^i <<»IW .......c-.t..&&.los^ 3)1^1 <wiwfff?a' -1- +i*itc)<fl-) tii>icft'ffrs'<fl <fa«;ii. ^aTf^fran^r Cl^iuse land revenue as provided under Cl^ii conflict in these two clauses in as land assessed to land revenue, th^ land revenue, while in a suit for is out of possession he will be value of the property in question inoonsistency to the legislative interjt However, learned oounsel objection that the suit is barred discussions, there is no illegality impugned order calling for interfere|i the revision is liable to be interferetice dismissec) and (v). A different interpretation will create a tiuch as in a suit for possession simplioiter of plaintiff will be required to pay 20 times the paijtition and separate possession. when plaintiff reqpired to pay Court fees on the actual market an|d such interpretation cannot attribute such an for the applicantsdoes not press on the |3y law of limitation. In view of the above cfsmmitted by the Court below in passing the under revisiongl jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- • Dhirendra Mishra Judge