Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA
Kartick Mondal
Versus
Biman Sen
C.O. NO. 1521 OF 2008
Decided On : 04-07-2008
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order of the Trial Court, which had rejected the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (!) (!) .
The suit involved a dispute over the title to a property, with plaintiffs seeking declarations of ownership, permanent injunctions, and recovery of possession (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs valued the suit at a specific amount for court fee purposes, based on the reliefs claimed, including declaration, injunction, and possession recovery (!) .
The defendants contended that since the relief for recovery of possession was based on the premise that the plaintiffs were out of possession and the value of the land was substantial, the suit should be valued at the market rate, which they claimed was over Rs. 1 crore, and thus, the court lacked jurisdiction due to insufficient pecuniary limits (!) (!) .
The Trial Court rejected the defendants’ plea, holding that reliefs for injunction and recovery of possession were dependent and incidental to the principal relief of declaration of title, and therefore, the suit should be valued under a specific section of the Court Fees Act (!) (!) .
The defendants filed a revisional application against this order, arguing that when recovery of possession is sought without declaration of title, the suit should be valued according to the market value, especially when the relief involves trespassers or unauthorized possession (!) (!) .
The defendants further argued that because the suit also included a declaration of title, it should be classified under a different valuation section, which considers the market value of the property, and that the court should interfere if the valuation was arbitrary or intended to evade proper court fees (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs’ side maintained that the principal relief was declaration of title, with other reliefs being consequential, and thus the suit should be valued accordingly, under the section that applies when declaration of title is the main relief (!) (!) .
The Court examined the pleadings and reliefs claimed, concluding that the relief for declaration of title was the principal relief, and the other reliefs for injunction and possession were incidental and dependent on the declaration (!) (!) .
The Court held that the suit was properly valued under the applicable section of the Court Fees Act, with jurisdiction to try the case confirmed, and the revisional application was accordingly rejected (!) (!) .
These points summarize the core issues, arguments, and the Court’s reasoning regarding the valuation of the suit and the jurisdiction based on the valuation.
(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 8 dated 22nd April, 2008 whereby the learned Trial judge rejected the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE propriety of such an order is under challenge in this application at the instance of the defendants/petitioners herein.
(3.) LET me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the defendants said application in the facts of the instant case.
(4.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, a decree for injunction was sought for against the defendants for restraining them from changing the nature and character of the suit property. A decree for permanent injunction has also been sought for against the defendants, for restraining them from transferring and/or alienating the suit property in favour of any third party. A decree for recovery of possession was also sought for against the defendants in the said suit.
(5.) THUS, it appears from the plaint that diverse reliefs were claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of common cause of action which is as follows :- The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was the khasmahal land of the State. They further claimed that the State of West Bengal settled the said khasmahal land in favour of their predecessor-in-interest. The plaintiffs inherited the suit property from their predecessor-in-interest after their death. The naxme of the plaintiffs were also recorded as owners of the suit property in the revenue records of the State. After change of the name of the road on which the suit property situates, the number of the original holding of the suit property was changed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and several holdings were created out of the parent land holding by the Corporation. All on a sudden the plaintiffs found that the defendant No. 4 namely Puja Constructions started raising construction on the suit property without obtaining any permission and/ or consent from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also came to know from the municipal records that the names of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 were recorded as transferee owners of the suit holdings. A building plan was also sanctioned by the Municipal Authority in favour of the defendants and the defendant No. 4 being a promoter/developer has started raising construction on the suit property as an agent of the said defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(6.) IN such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs against the defendants. In the concise statement of the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of khas possession is valued at Rs. 3,210/ -. In paragraph 20 of the said plaint the plaintiffs stated that for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the court and for payment of Court fees, the suit is valued at Rs. 3,210/- with the following break up i. e. for declaration of Rs. 100/-, for injunction Rs. 100/-, for recovery of possession, Rs. 3,000/- and for mesne profit Rs. 10/-tentatively. Court fees were also paid on such valuation of the plaint.
(7.) IN this context, the defendants/petitioners filed an application under order 7 Rule 10 with Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that since the plaintiffs are admittedly out of possession and since a decree for recovery of possession has been sought for, the plaintiffs ought to have valued the relief for recovery of possession at the prevailing market rate of the suit land which is not less than Rs. 1 crore and thus, the plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem Court fees on such valuation. The defendants produced their purchase deeds to show the present market price of the suit property and thus, claimed that since the valuation of the suit property is more than Rs. 1 crore, th
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
