Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHEILA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
KISHAN LAL KALRA - Respondent
Suit 35 of 1971
Decided On : 07/26/1974
COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 7 (IV) - VALUATION OF SUIT - POWER OF COURT TO INTERFERE - SUITS FOR ACCOUNTS - SUITS FOR INJUNCTION - SUITS FOR DECLARATORY DECREE - SUITS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT TO SHARE IN JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - SUITS TO OBTAIN A BENEFIT NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR TO ARISE OUT OF LAND - SUITS FOR MOVABLE PROPERTY WHERE SUBJECT MATTER HAS NO MARKET VALUE - COURT HAS NO POWER TO INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFF'S VALUATION OF RELIEF SOUGHT - COURT FEES ACT, SECTION 7 (IV).
Fact of the Case:
In three suits filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the plaintiffs valued the suits for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction at a nominal figure notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs in all the suits ex facie made out that the value of the subject matter of the suits runs into lakhs of rupees. The defendants contended that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suits had not been properly valued for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction in-as-much as the plaintiffs had valued the reliefs for the purposes of court-fees under Section 7 (iv) (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Court-fees Act at a nominal figure notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs in all the suits ex fade made out that the value of the subject matter of the suits runs into lakhs of rupees. They contended that even though the plaintiffs were entitled to place their valuation on the reliefs under Section 7 (iv) (b), (c), (d) and (f), such a right was not unfettered and the Court had a power and indeed an obligation under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure to consider if having regard to the allegations made in the plaint, the plaintiffs had valued the reliefs in such a manner that it had no reasonable relationship to the reliefs which the plaintiffs in fact sought or may eventually be held entitled and to require the plaintiffs to value the reliefs according to law and pay the deficit court-fee. On the other hand; the plaintiffs contended that they had an unfettered right to. place any valuation on the reliefs claimed by them for purposes of. court-fee under Section 7 (iv) (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Court-fees Act except in so far as the High Court may. regulate the matter of valuation by appropriate rules under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and that the valuation placed by the plaintiffs was beyond judicial review and the Court had no power to interfere in such a valuation. It was also contended by them that the reliefs had been valued by the plaintiffs in accordance with the provisions of the rules framed by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore which are still applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi by virtue of the provisions in Section. 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff has the right to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks, and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court has power to interfere in the plaintiff's valuation of relief for the purpose of court-fee under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act? 2. If so, (A) when would such interference be justified, and (B) what should be the criterion for the re-determination of the value ?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act and held that the provision gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks, subject, however, to any rules made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation.
Final Decision: The Court answered the first question in the negative, i.e., that Paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks, subject, however, to any rules made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation.
( 1 ) TWO questions have been REFERRED TO by H. L. Anand J. for the opinion of this Full Bench. They are:
(1) Whether the Court has power to interfere in the plaintiff s valuation of relief for the purpose of court-fee under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act; and
(2) If so,
(A) when would such interference be justified, and
(B) what should be the criterion for the re-determination of the value ?
( 2 ) THE reference came to be made in the following circumstances. Sudershan Kumar Kalra, Krishan Lal Kalra and Hans Raj Kalra are real brothers. Sudershan Kumar Kalra filed a suit originally in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, in December, 1968. He subsequently died and his wife and five children were brought on record as his legal representatives. The suit has since been transferred to the original side of this Court and re-numbered as Suit No. 35 of 1971. The defendants in the suit are (1) Kishan Lal Kalra (2) Hans Raj Kalra, (3) Jagmohan Kalra, (4) Kishan Lal and Company, and (5) M/s. Kishan Lal Wine Merchants (P) Ltd. An amended plaint was filed, and the prayers therein were (1) "for rendition of accounts of profits of the partnership Kishan Lal and Company (P) Ltd. from April 19, 1967, up to date and for the recovery of the amount found due on rendition of accounts". (2) for "a decree for perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against defendants I and 3 restraining them from withdrawing any amount from the partnership Kishan Lal and Company (P) Ltd. , Kishan Lal Wine Merchant and Kishan Lal Wine Merchants (P) Ltd. in contravention of clause 10 (b) of the Partnership Deed dated April 19,1967, viz. Rs. 1500. 00 per month and the amount of income-tax of defendant I and the amount of income-tax of defendant 3"; (3) for costs of the suit; and (4) "for future interest on the amount decreed on account of profits from the date of the institution of the suit till realization. The suit was valued in paragraph 23 of the amended plaint as follows:-
"value of the suit for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 400. 00 as stated below :- (i) For accounts of the profits Rs. 200. 00 (ii) For perpetual injunction Rs. 200. 00value of the suit for accounts for the purposes of court-fee has been fixed tentatively, the plaintiff will pay court-fee on the amount decreed on account of their shares of profits. Court-fee of Rs. 40/ has been paid. "
( 3 ) HANS Raj Kaira filed Suit No. 105 of 1970 on the original side of this High Court on April 4, 1970, against (1) Kishan Lal Kalra, (2) to (2) (e ). the widow and five children of late Sudershan Kumar Kalra, (3) Jagmohan Kalra, and (4) M/s. Kishan Lal Wine Merchants (P) Ltd. The plaintiff prayed as under in paragraph 46 of the amended plaint:-
" (1) (a)-that it be declared that the business of M/s. Kishan Lal and Co. along with its relevant liquor licence was, till 19-4-67, a business of the Joint Hindu Family, of which the plaintiff and the 1st and the 2nd defendants were co-parceners, and prior to that, the business of M/s. Esplanade Bar and Restaurant, since 3-6-1946, was similarly a business of the Joint Hindu family in the same manner and that since 19-4-1967, the. said business run in the name of M/s. Kishan Lal and Co. , Kishan Lal Wine Merchant and Kishan Lal Wine Merchants (P) Ltd. are partnership businesses of the plaintiff and the defendants;
(B) That in case it be found that the partnership agreement dated 19-4-67 is for any reason void, illegal or ineffective, then it may be declared that the said business still continues to be joint family business.
(C) In the alternative, it be declared that the business carried on in the name M/s. Kishan Lal and Company and Kishan Lal Wine Merchant since 1-9-1966, and prior thereto, in the name of M/s. Esplanade Bar and Restaurant, since 3-6-46, were partnership business as per deeds of partnership dated 14-3-1947, 27-4-1950, 7-11-1956, 1-7-1904, 1-7-1966, and 19-4-1967, and the plaintiff has
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
