Firm Jai Dev JaIn and Co. Vs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India

rajasthan court fees & suits valuation act, 1961 - section 29--suit for possession of land only and not building--whether value, of building be included. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - there the plaintiffs who had brought the suits asserted proprietory title to the land as well as the building standing on the land and it was in these circumstances that it was held that the value of the building is to be added to the value of the land to arrive at the valuation of the suit......of court-fee under section 29 of the rajasthan court-fees and suits valuation act, 1961. this contention was not accepted by the appellate court and hence this revision application has been filed.3. on behalf of the defendant it is contended that under section 29 of the rajasthan court-fees and suits valuation act, 1961 read with the rajasthan general clauses act, 1955 the valuation of the building should be included, because the building attached to the earth is also immoveable property. this argument is not tenable. under section 29 fee is to be computed on the market value of the property possession over which is claimed by the plaintiff. the plaintiff does not claim possession over the building. it is open to the defendants to remove the building before delivering possession over the land, the decision is sirdar mahomed tahar v. pir bux a.i.r. 1931 sind 6 and the decision in nihalchand v. udey ram 1886 weekly notes 106 are distinguishable. there the plaintiffs who had brought the suits asserted proprietory title to the land as well as the building standing on the land and it was in these circumstances that it was held that the value of the building is to be added to the value of the land to arrive at the valuation of the suit. in the present case the plaintiff only wants possession over the land and not over the building. in the following decisions this question was specifically raised and decided:-jogalkishore v. tale singh i.l.r. 4 allahabad 320 (f.b.).kulsumimn-i san v. khushunudi begum : air1954 all188 .abdul ghani v. vishunath : air1957 all337 .kewal kishore v. hamad ahmed khan .narasimha rao v. a. chenchamma a.i.r. 1962 andhra pradesh 408.4. it was held in all the above cases that the value of the building was not to be included where the plaintiff does not claim possession over the building.5. i accordingly find that there is no force in this revision and dismiss it with costs.