Dated 14.09.

2017

ORDER

At the time of marking the certified copy

of the market valuation certificate dated
11.08.2016 by the defendant side, the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs raised objection to
mark the said document. It was argument by
the plaintiff’s side that, the court cannot
estimate the court fee based upon the
certificate issued by the sub-registrar and that
this court has to taken into consideration of
Sec.35 of KCF Act, and thereby prayed not to
permit the defendant No.1 to mark the
document.
It is pertinent to note that, the present
suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a relief of
partition and separate possession over the suit
schedule property. The defendant No.1 has
examined himself as DW.1 and has got
produced the documents in support of his case.
While marking the certified copy of the market
valuation certificate issued by the sub-registrar
Periyapatna, the plaintiff’s side raised objection
contending that the defendant No.1 is trying to
mislead the court so has to take the jurisdiction
of this court from trying the suit and if the
document is marked certainly there is every
chances of transferring the case and that the
document is produced only to prolong the case.
Admittedly, the document produced by the
defendant No.1 is the attested copy issued by
the sub-registrar. It is pertinent to note that,
mere marking of document shall alone will not
given any strength to the document.
Admittedly, parties to the suit have every right
and opportunity to prove their case by
producing the document. In this case the
defendant No.1 has produced the attested copy
of the market valuation certificate issued by
the sub-registrar, Periyapatna. Admittedly it is
public document and it could be considered
only to an extent to the relevancy of the case.
It is well-settled law that any document
produced in the case shall be admissible
subject to proof and relevancy. Admittedly, the
plaintiff is having entire opportunity to cross-
examine the witness on this aspect. Whether
the witness is a proper person to speak on the
document or to what extent this court can
relay upon the document is a matter of trial.
Only taken into consideration that by marking
the document it would take jurisdiction of this
court shall not be the sole ground to reject the
marking of the document by the defendant
No.1. Admittedly, it could be said no ground is
made out to sustain the objection raised by the
plaintiff side. No doubt the plaintiff has relied
upon the decisions reported is as follows:
1. ILR 2011 KAR page 760,
2. ILR 1993 KAR.L.J, Page No.745,
3. ILR 1990(2) LAR.L.J, page No.255,
4. ILR 2004 KAR, page No.3350,
 5. AIR 1958 SC.R 1015,
6. ILR 1989 KAR 1240,
7. ILR 1989 KAR 1249,
8. ILR 2002 KAR 2347.

On perusal of these decisions, with great

respect it could be said these decisions are not
applicable to the case in hand with regard to
the marking the documents. Therefore, taking
in to consideration for the reasons discussed, I
proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Objection raised by the plaintiff No.1

in marking the market valuation certificate
dated 11.08.2016 is overruled.

For further chief examination of

DW.1.

(JAI SHANKAR.J)
Civil Judge and JMFC
Periyapatna