Back
1970 Supreme(Bom) 27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.N.Vaidya, J.
Appellants: Hasham Ismail Mamsa
Vs.
Respondent: Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Appeal No. 405 of 1969 Decided On: 13.02.1970
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.W. Adik and Vasantrao R. Bhandare, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.K. Singhavi and A.D. Desai, Advs.
The valuation of a suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff's valuation in the plaint and not by the amount which may be found or admitted by the Court.
Headnote:
COURT FEES - VALUATION OF SUIT - SUIT FOR ACCOUNTS - RELIEF FOR INJUNCTION - SECTION 6(IV)(I) AND 6(IV)(A) OF THE BOMBAY COURT-FEES ACT, 1959 - JURISDICTION OF CITY CIVIL COURT - SECTION 8 OF THE SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1887 - LIMITATION - SECTION 527 OF THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - WHETHER SUIT BARRED - INTERIM INJUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court for an account of property taxes paid to the Municipal Corporation and for a declaration that nothing was due and payable by him for the period up to March 31, 1968. He also sought an injunction restraining the Corporation from taking any coercive action for recovery of the taxes. The Corporation contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the value of the subject matter exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was essentially a suit for accounts and fell under Section 6(iv)(i) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, and not Section 6(iv)(a) as contended by the Corporation. The court further held that the valuation of the suit as made by the plaintiff in the plaint determined the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and not the amount which may be found or admitted by the Court. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. 2. Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was essentially a suit for accounts and fell under Section 6(iv)(i) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, and not Section 6(iv)(a) as contended by the Corporation. The court further held that the valuation of the suit as made by the plaintiff in the plaint determined the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and not the amount which may be found or admitted by the Court. 2. The court held that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the value of the subject matter did not exceed its pecuniary jurisdiction. 3. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the lower court returning the plaint and restored the suit. The court also directed the City Civil Court to hear and dispose of the Notice of Motion within two weeks after the receipt of the writ of this Court. The court further granted an interim injunction restraining the Corporation from taking any coercive action for recovery of the property taxes due from the plaintiff for the period up to 31st March 1968 till the hearing of the Motion by the City Civil Court.
2. The plaintiff is the owner of immovable properties bearing E Ward Nos. 3822(7), 3823 (1), 3823 (1A) and 3823 (IB) in street No. 97, Moreland Road, Bombay. On April 29, 1969, the plaintiff filed the above suit alleging that prior to 1953, the said properties and other properties were jointly owned by the plaintiff, his brother Azam Ismail Mamsa and sister-in law Srimati Rasulbibi, the wife of the elder brother of the plaintiff named Mahomed Ismail Mamsa. In a partition in the family the above proprties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The taxes in respect of the said properties were being paid from time to time to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Dispute started between the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the plaintiff in April 1950 with regard to the rateable value fixed by the Assessor of the Corporation. On receipt of the bills after further correspondence, the plaintiff filed appeals Nos. M 183 to M 192 of 1964 before the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay and when the said appeals were about to reach hearing, a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the Municipal Corporation subject to a review as a result of a case to be decicted by the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, because the Municipal Corporation had included while calculating the reteable value the increases permitted to the landlord under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. This Court had taken the view that the Municipal Corporation was not authorised to include the permitted increases and that view was upheld by the Supreme Court in the appeal and in view of these disputes regarding the rateable value, the Municipal Corporation by a letter dated May 17, 1967 mentioned the terms on which the appeals should be settled. The plaintiff accepted the terms of settlement and allowed the said appeals to be withdrawn and on the basis of the said settlement, the bill collector of the Municipal Corporation rectified the rateable value and necessary alterations were made in the bills.
3. The plaintiff further alleged that in accordance with the said settlement and altered bills, a sum of Rupees 1,40,578.44 was demanded by the Municipal Authorities as property taxes for the period from April 1, 1950 to March 31, 1968. The particulars of the demands and the bills are annexed to the plaint in a list Ex. C showing the ward number, bill number, period of the bill and the amount demanded under the bills. The plaintiff further alleged in paragraph 5 of the plaint that from 1950 to 1953. a total sum of Rs. 30,051/- was paid as taxes. From November 25, 1953 to February 27. 1959. the plaintiff paid an aggregate amount of Rs. 30,500/- and on account of disputes, no payment was made from 1959 to 1967. But from March 31, 1967 to April 29, 1969, the plaintiff made payments from time to time to the Municipal Authorities aggregating to Rupees 63,300/-. Thus in all, according to the plaintiff, he paid a sum of Rs. 1,23,851/-. The particulars of his payments are shown in a statement annexed to the plaint and marked Ex. D.
4. As the disputes were not finally settled, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court, being Suit No. 108 of 1966, for a declaration that till the complaints of the plaintiff were investigated in accordance with the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, notices of demand should not be issued against the plaintiff for recovery of the alleged property taxes. It appears that after the filing of the suit, the complaints made by the plaintiff were finally disposed of and the aforesaid settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the d
