Back
1986 Supreme(Cal) 445
High Court Of Calcutta
N.K.Mitra, J.
Nasiruddin Mallick
Vs.
Abdul Aziz Mallick
Decided On : Nov 28, 1986
Advocate Appeared:
B.C.Ghosh Roy, Haradhan Banerji, S.Parmer
In a suit by a Mutwalli for declaration of title and consequential relief of recovery of possession of wakf properties, the court has the power to enquire into the correctness of the valuation of the suit and revise the valuation if it is absurd, illogical, or arithmetically wrong.
Headnote:
COURT FEES - VALUATION - SUIT BY MUTWALLI - PRINCIPAL RELIEF DECLARATION OF TITLE - CONSEQUNTIAL RELIEF RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - COURT FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 7(IV)(B) OF THE WEST BENGAL COURT FEES ACT, 1970 - COURT HAS POWER TO ENQUIRE CORRECTNESS OF VALUATION - IF VALUATION ABSURD OR ILLOGICAL, COURT MAY REVISE VALUATION AND DEMAND PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COURT FEES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be a Mutwalli, filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of recovery of possession of wakf properties. Court fees were paid under Section 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. The defendant challenged the valuation of the suit, contending that ad valorem court fees should have been paid on the market value of the wakf properties. The trial court accepted the valuation given by the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principal relief in the suit was for declaration of title as Mutwalli and the relief for recovery of possession was consequential. Therefore, provisions of Section 7(iv) and not 7(v) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act would be attracted. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to state the amount at which he valued the relief sought for, but the court had the power to revise the valuation if it was absurd, illogical, or arithmetically wrong.
Issues: 1. Whether the principal relief in the suit was for declaration of title as Mutwalli or for recovery of possession of wakf properties? 2. Whether the court had the power to enquire into the correctness of the valuation of the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the principal relief in the suit was for declaration of title as Mutwalli, as the relief for recovery of possession was consequential and dependent on the declaration of title. 2. The court held that it had the power to enquire into the correctness of the valuation of the suit, as the valuation of the consequential relief in respect of wakf property in a suit had to be correctly made. If the value was absurd or illogical, the court could revise the valuation made by the plaintiff and demand payment of additional court fees.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to redetermine the issue regarding valuation of the suit in accordance with the law and the court's observations.
1. THE opposite party no. 1 filed Title Suit no. 78 of 1976 renumbered as Title Suit No. 112 of 1980 in the 1st court of the learned Additional Munsif, Howrah against the petitioners and other opposite parties for declaration of title over the suit property as a Mutwalli and for recovery of possession and injunction and valued the suit at Rs. 100/ -. The defendant/petitioners in their written statement inter alia, disputed the valuation of the suit and alleged that the value of the suit property being more than rupees 4 lakhs, ad valorem court fees should have been paid on it and the learned Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioners subsequently filed an application on 10th September, 1982 for deciding the valuation matter first and the learned Munsif by his order date 25th March, 1983 accepted the valuation given by the plaintiff and dismissed the said application of the defendant no. . . . . . holding inter alia, that the principal relief claimed in the suit being declaration of title as mutwalli, the valuation of the suit should be according to provisions of 7 (iv) (c) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. The learned Munsif relief upon the decision reported in AIR 1948 Calcutta 312; air 1954 Calcutta, 101 and 57 CWN 820.
2. MR. Ghose Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended before me that since the principal relief prayed by the plaintiff in the suit was for recovery of possession the provisions of Section 7 (v) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 would be attracted and in support of his contention referred to the decisions in Manick Chand Mondal and Anr. v. Sudhir Kumar Mondal reported in 64 CWN page 80, Sisir Kumar Dutta and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Dutta, reported in 65 CWN page 1 (Special Bench); Smt. Bela Rani Bhattacharyyee and Ors. v. Khandkar Ashadar Rahaman and Ors., reported in air 1975 Calcutta 79; Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and supply Society Ltd. v. Maulvi Mafizuddin Ahmed and Anr.,reported in 38 CWN 589 (Full Bench); Taramopi Chandra and Ors. v. Md. Ali Haider, reported in 80 CWN 1082, and Sambhu Nath Singh and Ors. v. Sankarananda banerjee, reported in AIR 1981 Calcutta 196.
Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, has submitted that since the principal relief in the suit is for declaration of the Mutwalli right over the suit property, the suit falls under section 7 (iv)9b) read with 7 (iv) (c)and not under Section 7 (v) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and that the question of Court fees an plaint is primarily, the question between the plaintiff and the court and the defendant can have no grievances in the matter, and also has no right to challenge the finding of the court on that issue in revision in support of is contentions. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the decisions in Hafiz Md. Fateh Nasib v. Hazi Abdur Rub and Anr. reported in the AIR 1954 Calcutta, 101, Md. Esha que v. Md. Amin and Ors. reported in AIR 1948 Calcutta, 312 and also shri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimala reported in AIR 1961 SC 1299.
3. I am unable to accept this submission of the learned advocate for the opposite party that in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sri Rathnavararmarja v. Smt. Vimala (Supra) this revisional application against the trial court's determination of the valuation matter is not maintainable.
4. THE plaintiff of this instant suit has purported to pay court fees upon his plaint in terms of Section 7 (iv) (b) of the West Bengal court Fees Act, 1970. According to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation act value as determinable for computation of Court fees and the value for the purposes of the jurisdiction shall be the same. In other words a decision upon the sufficiency or otherwise of the court fees paid upon the plaint of the instant case will effect the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of First instance to try the suit. . . . Therefore, in the instant case, the
