Whether court commissioner can be appointed for clarifying physical features of suit property in suit for injunction?

 In the judgment in Hayana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup and ors. (10) supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Commissioner can be appointed in injunction suits also. In J. Satyasri Rambabu v. A. Anasuya and anr. (5 supra) and G. Nagabhushanam v. T. Eswaramma (1 supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court also held that for the related purpose of clarifying the physical features of the suit schedule property there can be appointment of Commissioner even in a suit for perpetual injunction. The judgments rendered in Thalla Sulochana v. Thalla Isaac and anr., (2 supra) and Yenugonda Bal Reddy v. Manemma and ors., (3 supra) would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Andhra High Court

1.K.Dayanand And Another vs P. Sampath Kumar, S/O. ... on 11 November, 2014

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for plaintiff to give full description of suit property?

No care was taken by the Plaintiff to cure the

defect of wrong valuation and vagueness
in description of
the suit property despite the fact that specific written objections
were taken by the defendant. The Plaintiff could have valued
the Suit separately for the purposes of the Court fees and
jurisdiction of the Court as contemplated under the
Suit
Valuation Act and mentioning the relevant provision of the
Bombay Court fees Act. Valuation for the purposes of the Court

fees and for the purposes of the jurisdiction may also be the

same. But when the plaintiff in substance wanted to claim the
declaration as to the right , title as Owner of the immovable
residential property situated at Matunga, prime area in City of
Mumbai capable being valued in terms of money preferably by

the Government ready reckoner price and was duty bound to
state the market price of the property by reasonably estimating
the suit for the purposes of valuation of the Suit and for
jurisdiction of the Court and ought to have made payment of
ad valorem court fees stating the relevant provisions briefly for
benefit of the ministerial officer of the Court for to file the
plaint. . This was not done even till plaint was rejected by the
Court and not even till this appellate stage. The plaintiff must
be vigilant to give description of the immovable suit property
with its full description including boundaries thereof as
required in Order 7 rule 3 of the civil procedure code, as
amended in state of Maharashtra and cannot suppress the

market value of the Suit property from the court, as required to

be stated for the purposes of valuation of the suit for the
purpose of jurisdiction of the court as also for payment of the
Court fees. 

APPELLATE SIDE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

FIRST APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2013

Kishorbhai Premchand Shah  V  HIRJI BHOJRAJ & SONS

CORAM:-A. P. BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 2/9/2013
Citation;2014(2) MHLJ187 Bom

Print Page