Back
High Court Of Calcutta
B. N. Maitra
SAMBHU NATH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
SANKARANANDA BANERJEE - Respondent
CR 3211 Of 1980
Decided On : 02/06/1981
COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 7 (VI) (A), 11 - VALUATION OF RELIEF SOUGHT - SUBJECT-MATTER OF SUIT - JURISDICTION - REVISION - COURT-FEE - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FROM TRESPASSER - NO DECLARATION OF TITLE PRAYED FOR OR NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF SUIT - SUBJECT-MATTER OF SUIT WRONGFULLY VALUED - COURT'S POWER TO REVISE VALUATION - OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF VALUATION - ARBITRARY VALUATION OF SUIT - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO TRY SUIT - RETURN OF PLAINT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a title suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of immovable property, describing him as a trespasser and valuing his relief at Rs. 1,300/- only. The defendant objected that the valuation of the disputed property exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was covered by Section 7 (vi) (a) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970, and not paragraph (v) (a) thereof. It further held that the plaintiff had not asked for a declaration of title, and that no declaration of title to properly had either been prayed for or was necessary for the disposal of the suit. The court also held that the subject-matter of the suit had been wrongly valued, that the valuation of the relief sought was not less than Rs. 27,100/-, and that the suit had been arbitrarily valued at the patently absurd figure of Rupees 1,300/-. The court further held that the trial court acted with material irregularity in passing such order.
Issues: 1. Whether a revision lies against the order of the trial court determining the valuation of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff's valuation of the suit can be accepted? 3. Whether the subject-matter of the suit has been wrongly valued? 4. Whether the valuation of the relief sought is less than Rs. 27,100/-? 5. Whether the suit has been arbitrarily valued at the patently absurd figure of Rupees 1,300/-?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A revision lies against the order of the trial court determining the valuation of the suit, as the question of court-fee involves also the point of jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. 2. The plaintiff's valuation of the suit cannot be accepted, as there is an objective standard of valuation and the plaintiff has not supplied any data why he valued the relief claimed at Rs. 1,300/-. 3. The subject-matter of the suit has been wrongly valued, as the valuation of the relief sought is not less than Rs. 27,100/-. 4. The valuation of the relief sought is not less than Rs. 27,100/-, as the plaintiff artfully avoided putting the figure of the mesne profits in the plaint and the objective standard of valuation cannot be less than Rs. 27,100/-. 5. The suit has been arbitrarily valued at the patently absurd figure of Rupees 1,300/-, as the trial court acted with material irregularity in passing such order.
Final Decision: The Rule is therefore made absolute and the impugned order set aside. The plaint be returned to the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff for presenting it to the proper court. Send this intimation to the trial court. There will be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) ON the 2nd September, 1963, one Tapan Kumar Banerjee auction purchased the disputed property appertaining to the R. S. Plot No. 574/650 for Rs. 27,100/ -. One Ram Chandra Singh, predecessor of the petitioners, challenged that auction sale and filed Misc. Case No. 33 of 1966. Eventually that Misc. Case was compromised and Tapan Kumar's title admitted. The latter agreed to purchase the property for Rupees 32,000/ -. Instead of acting up to his agreement, Ram Chandra remained in unauthorised occupation of the property. On the 17th January, 1975, the plaintiff purchased that property for Rupees 25,000/ -. Shortly after that date he filed this title suit against Ram Chandra for recovery of possession describing him as a trespasser and valuing his relief at Rs. 1,300/- only. The defendant's objection is that the valuation of the disputed property exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
( 2 ) THE learned Munsif heard the parties and decided against the defendant. Hence this revisional application by the defendant.
( 3 ) MR. Manindra Nath Ghosh has contended for the petitioner that the case is not covered by clause (a) of paragraph (vi) of Section 7 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act. In fact the provision of paragraph (v) of Section 7 of the Act governs the case and the value of the subject-matter will determine that issue. Even if the paragraph (vi) (a) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act is applicable, declaration of title is absolutely necessary for the disposal of the suit. In any view of the matter, the suit has not been properly valued. The questions of jurisdiction and classification are also involved. If such decision is allowed to stand, then the suit will be tried by the learned Munsif and there will be a first appeal to the District Judge. If the objection is accepted, then the suit will be tried by the learned Subordinate Judge and there will be a first appeal to this Court.
( 4 ) MR. Ranadeb Choudhury has urged on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party that the case is on all fours with that of Amrit Lal v. Hiralal in (1966) 70 Cal WN 857. That was a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property from a licensee and no license fee was paid. The plaintiff put his own valuation. A Bench of our Court has stated that no order for ascertaining the value of the property could be passed because the Amending Court-fees Act no longer speaks about valuation of the property or the subject-matter. The amendment uses a significant expression "relief sought is valued". Valuation of the "relief sought" is not the same thing as valuation of the "property" itself or the "subject-matter" of the suit, vide the page 860 of the report. Reference has also been made to the cases of Rathna-yamaraja v. Vimla, and Amal v. Bhagwan, (1981) 85 Cal WN 42. It has been stated that those two cases clearly show that where the court decides a question regarding the valuation, that is a matter between the plaintiff and the Government and a revision does not lie against such order. Since the plaintiff is not enjoined to ask for a declaration of title, the case is covered by the provision of Section 7 (vi) (a) of the Court-fees Act A solenama was filed by Ram Chandra in Misc. Case No. 33 of 1966 and so there will be an estoppel. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act has been referred to. The court is to go by the statements in the plaint to determine the present controversy. Hence the plaintiff can put his own valuation. The relief claimed is the valuation of the mesne profits and not the subject-matter of the suit, which is the actual valuation of the disputed property.
( 5 ) SO the first question is whether a revision lies. The case of Amal v. Bhagwan (supra), cited on behalf of the opposite party, is clearly distinguishable because in this case the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed property. But in that case the plaintiff stated that he was in possession of the disputed pro perty. He asked for an inju
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
