Valuation clause in the plaint cannot be vague. It must reflectas to how the suit is valued under the Suit Valuation Act and Rules framed thereunder for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court and furthermore, as to how the suit is valued under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act for the payment of court fees payable under the relevant and appropriate provisions thereof. {Para 8}
11. Plaint in paragraph 16 reproduced supra is vague andomnibus. Without observing anything on merit, therefore, it would be expedient to quash and set aside impugned order with direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to amend paragraph 16 of the plaint in order to incorporate detailed pleading for the payment of court fees as to value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees. In view of the leave so granted, petitioner shall carry out amendment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. Trial Court shall then decide application (exhibit 14) afresh after hearing both the sides bearing in mind observations made in this order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1150 of 2014
Lokesh Ramraoji Navghare Vs Janardhan Haribhau Bhisikar,
Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 27th June 2014
1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. Petitioners (original plaintiffs) filed Special Suit No. 325 of
2013 for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and restoration of
possession and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Nagpur.
3. Respondents/defendants filed application (exhibit 14) for
rejection of plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
on the ground that even though plaintiffs have, interalia,
sought for relief
of restoration of possession the suit property value of which is Rs. 34 lacs,
still he has paid court fee only on Rs. 7 lacs. Petitioners/plaintiffs opposed
the said application.
4. Learned trial Judge instead of deciding the question as to
whether petitioners/plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of
jurisdiction of court and for payment of court fees, directed plaintiffs to
delete prayer clauses I and IV contained in the plaint. This order is under
challenge in this writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused
plaint, application, reply thereto and impugned order passed by the trial
Court. I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act, Suit Valuation Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon ruling in
Inderlal Panwarmal v. Khialdas and ors reported in 1969 DGLS (AHS)
1017 to contend that it was not open to the trial Court to revise the
valuation which the petitioner has put in its plaint and the case clearly falls
within Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Act. I have gone through the said ruling. In
the case before the Gujarath High Court, it was found that suit before it
was not in substance a suit to obtain substantive relief capable of being
valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetory loss. The
agreement which was obtained from plaintiff was out of coercion and no
consideration had passed from the defendant.
7. Relevant paragraph where petitioner/plaintiff has valued the
suit for jurisdiction of the Court and for payment of court fee, reads as
under:
“16. For the purposes of jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and
in so far as relief for cancellation of sale deed dated
21.04.2006 is concerned the suit is valued at Rs. 7,00,000/as
per consideration mentioned therein and court fees of Rs.
18,430/is
paid. Similarly additional fixed court fees of Rs.
200/is
also paid for the reliefs of declaration and permanent
and mandatory injunction.”
8. Valuation clause in the plaint cannot be vague. It must reflect
as to how the suit is valued under the Suit Valuation Act and Rules framed
thereunder for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court and furthermore, as
to how the suit is valued under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act for the
payment of court fees payable under the relevant and appropriate
provisions thereof.
9. Computation of fees payable in certain suits is provided under
Section 6 of the Maharashtra CourtFees
Act. It has been provided under
Section 6 (ha) of the Act that in suits for declaration that any sale, or
contract for sale or termination of contract for sale, of any movable or
immovable property is void onehalf
of ad valorem fee leviable on the value
of the property is required to be paid. Under Section 8 of the Suits
Valuation Act, 1887 it is provided that where in suits other than those
referred to in paragraphs (v), (vi) and (x) and clause (d) of paragraph (xi)
in Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 courtfees
are payable ad
valorem under the Bombay Courtfees
Act, 1959 the value as determinable
for the computation of courtfees
and the value for purposes of jurisdiction
shall be the same. Rule 2 of the Civil Court Manual (Rules Made by the
High Court under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869) and the CourtFees
Act, 1870 provides as under:
“2. In suits for the possession of land, houses, and gardens
mentioned in paragraph (v) in Section 6 of the Bombay
Courtfees
Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959) (hereinafter
referred to as “the CourtFees
Act”), for the purposes of
jurisdiction, the value of the property shall be determined
as follows, namely :
(a) Where the subjectmatter
is a house or garden,
according to the market value of the house or garden, as
the case may be;
(b) Where the subjectmatter
is a house or garden
according to the market value of the assessment payable in
respect of the land.”
Article 7 of Schedule I contained in the Maharashtra CourtFees
Act, provides for ad valorem fee on any other plaint, application or
petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief
capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of
monetary loss including cases wherein application or petition is either
treated as a plaint or is described as the mode of obtaining the relief as
aforesaid.
10. In Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha & anr reported in (1987) 4
SCC 69, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in
Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar and
Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar that in
a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under
Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is
free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the
plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee
and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in
cases where it appears to the court on a consideration of the
facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is
arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been
demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the
valuation made by the plaintiff by an inquiry and may direct
proper valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction of the
court and payment of court fees. and can revise the same. The
plaintiff has valued the leasehold interest on the basis of the
rent. Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the courts
below, is reasonable and the same is not demonstratively
arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate underestimation of
the reliefs....”
11. Plaint in paragraph 16 reproduced supra is vague and
omnibus. Without observing anything on merit, therefore, it would be expedient to quash and set aside impugned order with direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to amend paragraph 16 of the plaint in order toincorporate detailed pleading for the payment of court fees as to value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees. In view of the leave so granted, petitioner shall carry out amendment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. Trial Court shall then decide application (exhibit 14) afresh after hearing both the sides bearing in mind observations made in this order.
12. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of directions in
paragraph 10 above with no order as to costs.
A. P. BHANGALE, J
joshi
::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2022 17:40:32 :::
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment