JUDGMENT - SHAH, J. :

The plaintiffs filed Suit No. 2435 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay claiming the following reliefs : —

" (a) That it may be declared that the alleged sale by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant purported to have been effected at the auction held on the 11th October 1954 is illegal, void invalid ineffective, bad in law and not binding upon the plaintiffs by reason of the premises mentioned in the plaint and that the same be set aside.

(b) That the 1st defendant be permanently restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Honourable Court from proceeding further with the completion of the alleged sale and conveying the said properties in favour of the 2nd defendant and that the 2nd defendant be also restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Honourable Court from completing the alleged sale and having the said properties conveyed in his favour." The plaintiffs valued the claim for Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 420. The defendants contended that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They contended that the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court being limited to Rs. 25,000, the City Civil Court was incompetent having regard to the value of the subject-matter to entertain and try the suit. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court upheld the contention of the defendants and ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court. Against that order an appeal was preferred to this Court being Appeal from Order No. 171 of 1955. Mr. Justice1 Bavdekar, who heard the appeal held that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and reversed the order passed by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to proceed according to law. Mr. Justice Bavdekar observed that at best the plaintiffs were claiming a declaration of their right of redemption which was of the value not exceeding Rs. 9.000 and the City Civil Court was competent to try a suit which was valued at Rs. 9,000. Mr. Justice Bavdekar further observed that it did not seem that as a matter of fact the subject-matter of the suit was the equity of redemption, and that the suit being a suit for a declaration and an injunction the plaintiffs were entitled to value it at any figure they liked and the enactment of Sec. 8A by Bombay Act 12 of 1954 did not take away the right of the plaintiffs to value the claim for declaration and injunction as they chose. Holding that no prima facie case was made out in support of the plea that the plaintiffs suit was undervalued, and the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the correct valuation under Sec. 8A of the Court-fees Act was not attracted, the learned Judge passed the order against which this appeal has been, filed.

(2) Section 7 of the Court-fees Act by clause (iv) (c) prescribes the method of computation of Court-fee payable in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where consequential relief is claimed. In such a suit the Court-fee is to be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint but subject to the provisions of Section 8A with a minimum fee of Rs. 10. By Sec. 8A it is provided :

"If the Court is of opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose."

Evidently under Sec. 7. clause (iv) (c), the plaintiffs have the right to put their own valuation on the subject-matter of the suit, and it is on the valuation put by the plaintiffs that the Court-fee is exigible. By Sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, in suits falling under Sec. 7 (iv) (c) the value deter- minable for the computation of Court-fees, and the value for purposes of jurisdiction, are to be the same : that is, the valuation adopted by the plaintiff for computing the Court-fees governs the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted. Indisputably by Sec. 8A of the Court-fees A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document