1. Partition suit for separate possession of a share in immovable property — Dispute regarding valuation for court fees. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 975
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS
Vs.
INDU PRABHA VACHASPATI
Decided on July 22, 1997
Important Points
Valuation of a claim for court fees depends on the prayers in the plaint, and constructive possession justifies the payment of court fees on a proportionate share of the property.
Subject
Civil Law - Court Fees and Valuation
Act Referred
Headnote
Court Fees - Valuation of Property - The court held that the valuation of a claim for the purposes of court fees depends on the prayers in the plaint. The plaintiff's constructive possession through her tenants justified the payment of court fees on 1/5th value of her share, as opposed to the full value contended by the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contended that the prayer of the plaint had been wrongly valued for court fees, arguing that the plaintiff must be presumed to have parted with possession of the property in question.
Finding of the Court:
The High court rightly held that the plaintiff's constructive possession through her tenants justified the payment of court fees on 1/5th value of her share.
Issues: Valuation of property for court fees
Ratio Decidendi: Valuation of a claim for court fees depends on the prayers in the plaint. The plaintiff's constructive possession through her tenants justified the payment of court fees on 1/5th value of her share.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that court fees should be paid on full value due to presumed loss of possession versus payment on one-fifth value. (Para 3 )
3. Valuation depends on the plaint's prayers; constructive possession through tenants indicates the plaintiff has not divested possessory rights. (Para 3 )
4. Where a plaintiff maintains constructive possession of property through tenants, court fees for separate possession are payable on a fractional value. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 4 )
6. How is the valuation for court fees determined in a suit for separate possession of property?
Valuation depends on the prayers in the plaint and whether the plaintiff has divested themselves of possessory rights or remains in possession. (Para 3 )
7. Does constructive possession through tenants influence the court fee valuation in a partition suit?
Yes, if the plaintiff has constructive possession through tenants, they are not considered to have parted with possession, allowing for court fees to be paid on a fractional value. (Para 3 )
( 1 ) THIS is a cross-appeal filed by the Chief Inspe /1979 in CR No. 559 of 1972. The appeal filed by the respondent in respect of the same judgment regarding valuation, on a question which was decided against her by the High court has been allowed by this court (. CA No. 2220 of 1982.
( 2 ) IN the present appeal, the appellant contends that prayer (c) of the plaint has been wrongly valued for the purpose of court fees. Prayer (c) is as follows:
"that the plaintiffs one-third share in the properties left by late Dr B. N. Prasad as detailed in Schedule a attached to the plaint be partitioned and the plaintiff be put in separate possession of her share (valued at Rs 1,03,880. 25p.)"
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, the plaintiff must be presumed to have parted with possession of the property in question and hence court fees should have been paid on the full value of her share, in the property instead of 1/5th value of her share as has been done by her. This contention has been rightly negatived by the High court. Valuation of a claim for the purposes of court fees depends on the prayers in the plaint. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly stated that the immovable properties in question are at present in the occupation of tenants and the plaintiff has got constructive possession of the same. The High court has rightly held that the plaint does not disclose anywhere that the plaintiff had divested herself of the possessory right in the said properties or that she was out of possession after the execution of the documents which are impugned in the plaint. The plaintiffs case is that she is in constructive possession through her tenants. Hence the High court has rightly held that the court fees would be payable on the l/5th value of her share as has been done by her.
( 4 ) THE appeal is. therefore, dismissed with costs.
