The valuation of a suit for the purpose of jurisdiction under the Suits Valuation Act is the same as the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.

Headnote:
SUITS VALUATION ACT - JURISDICTION - COURT FEES ACT - VALUATION OF SUIT - INJUNCTION - ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT ACT - LETTERS PATENT - RESIDUARY JURISDICTION - [SECTION 3, 4, 6(IV)(D), 6(IX), 8, 12 OF THE SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1887] [SECTION 6(IV)(D), 6(IX), 23(F) OF THE BOMBAY COURT FEES ACT, 1959] [SECTION 3, 14 OF THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT ACT, 1948] [CLAUSE 12 OF THE LETTERS PATENT]
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from attaching her property for the recovery of income tax due by her deceased husband. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 300/- under Article 23(f) of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, claiming that the subject matter of the suit was not capable of being estimated in money value. The trial court returned the plaint to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the suit did not fall under Article 23(f) of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, as the subject matter of the suit, being land, was capable of being estimated in money value. The Court further held that the suit fell under Section 6(ix) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which provides for suits to set aside an attachment of land or an interest in land, and that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was the same as the valuation for the purpose of court fees. Since the value of the suit property exceeded Rs. 25,000/-, the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit fell under Article 23(f) of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and was therefore not capable of being estimated in money value for the purpose of jurisdiction. 2. Whether the suit fell under Section 6(ix) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was the same as the valuation for the purpose of court fees.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the subject matter of the suit, being land, was capable of being estimated in money value, and therefore the suit did not fall under Article 23(f) of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. 2. The Court held that the suit fell under Section 6(ix) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which provides for suits to set aside an attachment of land or an interest in land, and that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was the same as the valuation for the purpose of court fees.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal against an order dated 8th March 1967 passed by a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court returning the plaint to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper court under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit from which the present appeal arises in the Bombay City Civil Court on the following allegations:

The plaintiff is the widow of one Chimanlal Chhotalal Desai who died on or about 22nd January 1965. The defendant No.1 is the Union of India. The defendant No.2 is the Additional Collector of Bombay in charge of income-tax recoveries. The deceased Chimanlal Desai, the husband of the plaintiff, was assessed to income-tax amounting to Rs.8,82,427.65 p. In realization of the said amount of income-tax the defendant No.2 had attached a property bearing city Survey No.7/596 of Malbar and Cumbala Hill Divisions, situated at Bhulabhai Desai road, in the compound known as Oomer Park, Bombay. The building on the land is known as American View. The total area of the land is 950 square yards. The tenure is pension and tax (sic) and the ground rent is about Rs.360/- per mensem. The plaintiff contends that by a deed of assignment dated 6th November 1950 she and her husband Chimanlal purchased the said property in their joint names and as joint tenants and that on the death of her husband she has become the absolute owner of the said property by survivor-ship. According to her, as the attachment of the property is after the death of her husband, the property is not liable to attachment because she is the absolute owner of the said property. The second contention of the plaintiff is that her husband left a Will under which he has wrongfully disposed of the said property as if the same belonged absolutely to him, giving to her a permanent right of residence in the said property during her life-time and enjoyment of all the rents and profits of the said property during her life-time. The plaintiff contends that her husband had no right to dispose of this property by his Will in the aforesaid manner. Her third contention in the alternative is that in any event she has the right of residence and maintenance for which the said property is charged. Her fourth and the last contention is that she made an application to the authorities to investigate her claim but without any investigation the authorities are putting the property to sale which they are not entitled to do. The plaintiff contends that the defendants, had no right to attach or to continue the attachment of the said property in proceedings for recovery of income-tax due by her deceased husband. In the plaint, the relief prayed for is only for an injunction in the following terms:

"That the Defendants be decreed and ordered by a permanent injunction and order both by themselves and by their agents and servants, from attaching, or continuing to attach, or from selling or dealing with or disposing or taking any proceedings relating to or from interfering with the plaintiffs rights in relation to the said property, being American View, situated at Oomer Park, Bhulabhai Desai road, Bombay 26, or any part thereof;

3. The plaintiff had valued the suit relief in para 13 of the plaint and states that the said relief is incapable of monetary valuation and that for the purpose of Court-fees the suit would fall under Art.23 (f) of Sch. II of the ?Bombay Court fees Act. After lodging the plaint the plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for interim injunction and applied to the learned Judge for ex parte ad interim order, on 8th March 1967. Instead of granting the ad interim order, the learned Judge ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff. The order of the learned Judge is in the following terms:-

"Plaint returned for want of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper Court as in my view, the "subject matter" of suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court".

It is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document