Can owner question the jurisdiction relying on document not in plaint?
Ex-owner filed suit for declaration and possession of property in Sept. 2010 in Saket court challenging sale deed of new owner (possession since 1993). Ex- owner not in possession of property. Ex- owner valued property at Rs.9 lacs (entered in agreement to sell in 1993). Ex- owner valued property Rs. 2.25 Cr in June 2010 in new agreement to sell by ex- owner with builder (Not disclosed in plaint).
New owner moved 7 rule 11 questioning pecuniary jurisdiction relying on the document that is not disclosed in plaint . Which section of 7 rule11 is applicable?
Any judgement supporting your view? Suggestions?
If a suit property is undervalued, the Plaintiff is required to correct the value and pay the deficit court fee. If such re-valuation ousts the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed originally, the plaint has to be returned for presentation in the court having pecuniary jurisdiction.
If the valuation is not corrected and deficit court fee is not paid even after direction of court, only then the Court can reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (b).
However in the set of facts that you have provided, the proper valuation of the suit property shall oust the jurisdiction of the Court in which the matter is currently filed, therefore the new owner can move an application under O.7 R.11 (b) for the rejection of the plaint on the grounds of exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint shall be returned with a direction to file it before the competent court.
Yes, he may reply on the document not disclosed in the Plaint because the ex-owner has relied on the sale deed dated 1993 to determine the value of the suit property. The new Owner can present documents which can help the Court determine the real value of the property and in this case it is an agreement to sell executed by the plaintiff himself.
In the case of Mannu Das v. Kisho Das, AIR 1983 Pat 272, it was held that in case the valuation of the suit property is arbitrary and unreasonable, the Court can interfere Under O. 7 R. 11 of the CPC. In the case where the plaintiff relies upon a sale deed executed in 1993 to value the property, the same cannot be said to be reasonable.
Send a legal notice to builder for delay in construction @ Rs. 1999/- only
- Disclaimer: The above query and its response is NOT a legal opinion in any way whatsoever as this is based on the information shared by the person posting the query at LawRato.com and has been responded by one of the Property Lawyers at LawRato.com to address the specific facts and details. You may post your specific query based on your facts and details to get a response from one of the Lawyers at LawRato.com or book a Detailed Consultation with a Lawyer of your choice to address your query in detail.
Get Started >>
Answers by Our Lawyers
- My tenant is neither paying rent nor vacating
- Unpaid electricity dues of Tenant electricity department harassing me
- Consecutively two cheques bounced
- Malafide transfer & harassment salary reduction terminated no inquiry
- Bought a ring online. Got wrong product. Co. not taking action.