IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1461 of 2006 YUGESHWAR PANDIT & ORS Versus SURENDRA MISHRA & ORS ----------- 2. 21.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The valuation of the suit property having been gone into by the court below with the help of evidence both oral and documentary, its finding that the total valuation would be of Rs.2,50,000/- has been sought to be assailed by Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that the court below has committed jurisdictional error in refusing to consider a photo stat copy of the document, namely, Ext. A/4. He would further submit that there were other clinching evidence to show that the lands were not valuing less than Rs. 10 lacs. This Court on perusal of Ext. A/4 would find that though the document would not inspire confidence unless some person came out to depose in support of that document, by proving document and the contents thereof. Ext. A/4 being only some out of context entry in a register otherwise has hardly any authenticity in absence of 2 any signature of authority over the same. It was thus very difficult for the court below to place reliance and therefore, it also had recorded that a more hypothetical valuation which has got nothing to do with the actual price of valuation, could not be made the basis for valuation of the suit. In fact Mr. Verma very fairly submitted that this document was not a public document and therefore was required to be prove in terms of the Evidence Act. The Court below therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to look into the document for fixing value of the suit land. As a matter of fact this Court also would not place reliance on such a transacted document and at least Ext. A/4 cannot be made basis by any court for fixing valuation of the land. Having thus not accepted the submissions of Mr. Verma, it would be difficult for this Court to weigh evidence of other witnesses who have orally stated about the valuation of the land and on the basis of which the court below has found that in the year 1998 the land was valuing 3 around Rs. 1000/- per katha and Bagicha thereon keeping in view the age of the plants at least could have been valued at Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, there being no error in consideration of the materials on record this Court would not find any error in the impugned order, especially when such valuation of suit land is also not going to affect the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/