1) For a partition suit involving immovable property, the valuation must ideally reflect the prevailing market price or the government circle rate (ready reckoner rate) at the time the suit was instituted.

2)  plaintiff initially has the freedom to estimate the value of the relief, the court has explicit powers to investigate if the property is demonstratively undervalued or arbitrarily valued to evade court fees or manipulate jurisdiction.

3)  You have the right to file an objection (by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 stating that the property is grossly undervalued. The court will then order an inquiry, look at the circle rates/market value, and determine the exact correct valuation

4) your sister in law has to file amendment application under order Vi rule 17 explaining why the valuation needs to be changed 

Whatever value of the suit property mentioned at the time of of instituting the suit will continue till it is disposed unless the defendant challenges the same during trial seeking dismissal for undervaluing the property and paid less court fee.

But the responsibility to prove the higher value of the suit property with the support of substantial documentary evidences will lie on the person disputing it.

Yes she can change and pay the deficit court fees. You can also point out the same. The court will value the property and later ask her to pay the same. The valuation depends on the ready reckoner rate and not the market rate 

Under Section 7(4)(b) read with Art. 17, Sch. II, a plaintiff in suit for partition  of ancestral property is required to pay fixed Court fee and not ad volrum Court fee, Market value of property in a suit for partition  is not relevant.

From the facts stated by you, the Court will not be bound merely by the valuation of ₹80 lakhs mentioned by your sister-in-law in the plaint if that valuation is shown to be incorrect, undervalued, or artificially reduced for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees. In partition suits, there are two distinct issues involved: one is valuation for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and the other is the actual market value of the property for purposes of final partition, sale, adjustment of equities, and determination of shares. Therefore, merely because the plaintiff has initially valued the property at ₹80 lakhs does not permanently freeze or conclusively determine the actual value of the property.

If it is established during the proceedings that the market value of the property is substantially higher, the Court can examine the issue of undervaluation and may direct correction of valuation and payment of proper court fees. You, as defendant, can specifically raise objections regarding improper valuation and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction if you believe the suit has deliberately been undervalued to avoid filing before the competent higher court or to reduce court fees. Such objections should ideally be raised at the earliest stage in the written statement and through appropriate applications. The Court may then consider circle rates, guidance value, municipal valuation, comparable sale deeds, valuation reports, or other evidence to determine whether the suit has been properly valued.

At the stage of final adjudication and partition, courts ordinarily consider the prevailing value of the property or value determined through evidence, especially where sale, buyout, adjustment, auction, mesne profits, or compensation become relevant. Therefore, even if the plaint presently mentions ₹80 lakhs, the actual market value may still become relevant later in the proceedings. If the property is eventually sold or one party seeks adjustment by purchasing another party’s share, the realistic market value generally assumes importance.

Your payment of the entire outstanding bank loan to prevent auction of the property is also a legally significant factor. Since the loan liability was attached to the property and you alone discharged the entire liability after your father’s death, you may claim equitable adjustment, contribution, reimbursement, or accounting against the shares of the other co-sharers. In other words, while the other legal heirs may still claim their inheritance shares, the Court can take into account that you alone saved the property by clearing the bank dues. Therefore, the liability aspect cannot simply be ignored while claiming partition benefits.

As regards your sister-in-law’s remarriage, under normal Hindu succession principles, if her husband (your brother) died before your father, then your brother’s share devolving through succession upon your father’s death may still pass to your brother’s legal heirs, including widow and son, depending upon the exact sequence of succession and title structure. Her remarriage after institution of the suit does not automatically extinguish rights already inherited, though exact shares must be examined carefully based on succession chronology.

Accordingly, if you believe the suit has been deliberately undervalued, you should immediately ensure that your written statement specifically raises objections regarding undervaluation, pecuniary jurisdiction, actual market value, and your right to reimbursement/contribution for discharge of the bank loan. The Court is not necessarily bound forever by the ₹80 lakh valuation mentioned in the plaint and may consider the actual prevailing value of the property where required during the proceedings.

Dear Client,

our sister‑in‑law can, in principle, seek to amend the value mentioned in the plaint, but she would have to do so by filing a formal application for amendment of the plaint under Section 151 CPC and Order VI Rule 17, and the court can allow it only if the amendment does not radically change the nature of the suit and is otherwise justified on the facts. Courts are cautious about valuation‑changes because the value fixes court‑fees and pecuniary‑jurisdiction (lower court vs High Court), and an amendment that suddenly raises the value and seeks to transfer the matter to a higher‑forum may be resisted or allowed only with conditions.

As to whose value the court will accept, the law is that the actual prevailing market value of the property is what matters for the substantive relief and calculation of shares, not just the self‑declared value in the plaint. The court will normally fix the value based on the market‑condition at the date of the suit (or at a relevant date), opinions from a court‑appointed valuer, and material evidence on record (guideline‑value, recent‑sales‑of‑similar‑plots, etc.). So, even if she has mentioned only ₹80 lakhs in the plaint, the court can, and often does, take a higher fair‑market‑value into account while deciding the share‑in‑partition and the liability‑apportionment (including the bank‑loan); you can argue that the valuation‑she‑used was clearly understated merely to keep the case before the lower court, and the court‑should independently determine the true market‑value for the purpose of calculating each heir’s share and the loan‑liability. 

I hope this helps and if you have any further issues do not hesitate to contact us.

To answer your question, the plaintiff can request to amend the valuation in the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, but the court will carefully evaluate such a request, particularly if it affects its pecuniary jurisdiction. The court generally considers the market value of the property prevailing at the time of the final decree, not the value originally stated in the plaint. Your sister-in-law undervalued the property to reduce court fees and keep the suit in a lower court; however, this undervaluation may be challenged. It may result in the court directing her to pay the deficit court fees before any final decree is passed.