The valuation for the purposes of court-fee and the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction must be the same in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paragraphs v, vi and ix and x, Clause (d), where court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870).

Headnote:
COURT FEES - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES ACT, 1870, SECTIONS 7(IV)(C), 8, 11, 17 - SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1887, SECTION 8 - REVISION UNDER SECTION 115, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - COURT HELD THAT THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COURT-FEE AND THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE SHOULD BOTH BE RS. 22,500/-.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution and accounts of an alleged partnership, a declaration that transactions entered into by the first petitioner with the other petitioners were not binding upon him, partition of the partnership properties, and possession thereof from the petitioners. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, but was returned for presentation to the proper Court due to improper court-fee stamp. The plaintiff then filed the suit in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, valuing it for jurisdiction at Rs. 22,500. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff could be asked to pay court-fee for the properties of his share which could be ascertained only after taking accounts and that the suit was merely for accounts for which court-fee could be paid at the stage of the final decree.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the learned Judge erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff had asked for further reliefs also which were incidental to the declaratory relief. The court further held that the suit should have been placed under Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, which provides for the aggregation of fees for suits embracing two or more distinct subjects, as the plaintiff had asked for more than two distinct reliefs.
Issues: 1. Whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was proper? 2. Whether the Court had jurisdiction? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief against defendants 2 and 3 without payment of Court-fee stamp on the market value of the plaintiffs share in the properties in the possession of defendants 2 and 3?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The value for the purposes of court-fee and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction in this case should both be Rs. 22,500/- as per Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. 2. The suit should have been placed under Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, as it embraced more than two distinct subjects.
Final Decision: The court set aside the findings recorded by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Poona on 4-7-1956 on the two issues: (1) is the suit valued properly for court-fee? and (2) is the plaintiffs contention barred by res judicata? and directed that the value for the purposes of court-fee would be Rs. 22,500/-. The trial Court should give adequate time to the plaintiff to pay the court-fee.

ORDER

1. This is a revisional application filed by the Petitioners who were originally defendants Nos. 1, 2 3 and it raises a question of court-fees. The plaintiff-opponent has filed a suit, being suit No. 6 of 1955, against the petitioners for dissolution and accounts of an alleged partnership between himself and the first petitioner. The plaintiff has also asked for a declaration that the transactions entered into by the first petitioner with the other petitioner were not binding upon him and did not in any way affect his rights to the suit properties and prayed that the accounts of the alleged partnership be taken after taking this fact into consideration. He has also prayed for partition of the partnership properties and possession thereof from the petitioners and for the amount found due upon taking accounts from the first petitioner. There is also a prayer for the appointment of a receiver or commissioner for the custody of properties and for taking accounts.

2. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona and it was resisted by the petitioners upon several grounds, one of the grounds being that proper court-fee stamp was not paid by the Plaintiff and the Court had no jurisdiction as the value of the subject-matter exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Certain preliminary issues were raised. Issue No. 5 was: "Is the Court-fee stamp paid by the plaintiff proper?" Issue No. 7 was: "Has this Court jurisdiction?" and Issue No. 12 was: "Is plaintiff entitled to relief against defendants 2 and 3 without payment of Court-fee stamp on the market value of the plaintiffs share in the properties in the possession of defendants 2 and 3?" The learned Judge tried all these preliminary issues and by his judgment dated 2-12-1954, he held that the plaintiff must pay ad valorem court-fee on the suit properties as he had, besides dissolution and accounts of alleged partnership between himself and the first petitioner, asked for partition and possession of suit immoveable properties from strangers to the alleged partnership. In view of this finding, the learned Judge held that the Court had no jurisdiction and he ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court and gave the plaintiff time till 10-12-1954 to amend the plaint, failing which the suit was to stand dismissed. In place of the abovesaid two orders, the learned Judge by his order dated 8-12-1954 called upon the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to valuates it properly within a week. The first petitioner thereupon filed civil revision application No. 199 of 1955, contending that the orders passed by the learned Judge were without jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Gajendrasadkar, by his judgment dated 29-9-1955, confirmed the order of the learned Judge by which the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, but he set aside the other two orders. The plaint was accordingly returned to the plaintiff on 5-1-1956 and on the same day the plaintiff presented it in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona and the suit was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1956. As the plaintiff had not valued the suit for jurisdiction, he on 21-4-1958 made an application for amendment of the plaint giving the valuation for jurisdiction at Rs. 22,500. The learned Judge raised a preliminary issue regarding valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and an issue to whether the plaintiffs contentions were barred by res judicata. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the plaintiff could not agitate the question as it had already been held that he must pay ad valorem court-fee. It was also contended that the plaintiff not only wanted dissolution and accounts of the alleged partnership and a declaration that the transactions entered into by the first petitioner with the other petitioners did not affect his rights, but he also wanted partition and possession of prope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document