SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Del) 183

High Court Of Delhi
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Decided On : 11/21/1968

The word "property" in the proviso to section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act means the right claimed, not the property to which the claim relates.

Headnote:

COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 7 (IV) (C) - COURT FEES - VALUATION OF SUIT - LEASEHOLD RIGHTS - PROPERTY - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, Union of India, claiming declaration, injunction, and specific performance of an agreement to lease a plot of land. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds, including improper valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suit was not properly valued and that the plaintiff should have paid ad-valorem court-fee on the market value of the property in suit. The court further held that the relief of specific performance fell under section 7 (x) (c) of the Court-fees Act and court-fee was payable on Rs. 79,590.00, the aggregate amount of the premium and rent. The court also held that the reliefs of declaration and injunction fell within the ambit of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act and that court-fee was payable only on the value of the leasehold rights, not on the market value of the land.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit was properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? 2. Whether the court-fee was payable on the market value of the property in suit or on the value of the leasehold rights?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word "property" in the proviso to section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act as meaning the right claimed, not the property to which the claim related. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was liable to pay court-fee on the value of the leasehold rights, not on the market value of the land, as the title of the land vested in the defendant.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, with costs.

Om Parkash, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision-petition, by the defendant, is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The defendant. Union of India, had executed an agreement on the 8th October, 1945, in favour of the plaintiff, to grant the plaintiff perpetual lease of a plot of land on certain terms and conditions. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, claiming the fokllowing reliefs :-

( 2 ) "1. It be declared that all the buildings constructed on the plot of land mentioned in paragraph 4 of this plaint were and are in accordance with the agreement to Lease dated the 8/10/1945, th there has been no departure or contravention of the terms of said agreement of lease; that the plaintiff had fully complied with the covenants of the said agreement and that the buildings were complete in all respects on the 8th October, when the agreement to lease was executed by the defendant; that the said agreement related to the buildings as they existed on the site on the date of its execution, and therefore, it precluded the defendant from contending that the terms of the agreement have not been complied with and that there has been no misuse of the premises or the buildings thereon.

( 3 ) 2. A perpetual injunction be issued to the defendant restraining it from relying on or taking any action in respect of any alleged contraventions of lease dated the 8th October, 1945, or for alleged misuse of the premises or the buildings thereon and from exercising the right of re-entry on such grounds. A decree for specific performance of the agreement to lease dated the 8th October, 1945 and for execution of a perpetual lease in terms of the draft annexed to the said agreement to lease and for registration thereof be passed in favour of the plaintiff. "

( 4 ) THE suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of the claim of declaration at Rs. 1,000. 00, for purposes of injunction at Rs. 200. 00 and for purpose of specific performance at Rs. 10,000. 00. The plaintiff paid court-fee of Rs. 19. 75 in respect of the claim of declaration, Rs. 20. 00 in respect of the claim of injunction and Rs. 1,126. 50 P. in respect of the claim of specific performance. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds. One of the objections raised was that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and that the plaintiff should have paid ad-valorem court-fee on the market value of the property in suit.

( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge struck the following preliminary issue:-

"whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?"

( 6 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly valued. He held that court-fee should have been paid under section 7 (X) (c) of the Court-fees Act so far as the relief of specific performance is concerned. The amount of premium and the annual rent, according to the agreement dated the 8/10/1945, was Rs. 75,800. 00 and Rs. 3,790. 00 respectively. The learned Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiff to pay court-fee on Rs. 79,590. 00 the aggregate amount of the premium and rent, with respect to claim of specific performance.

SO far as the other two reliefs, regarding declaration and injunction were concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that the relief of injunction directly followed from the relief,of declaration and was, as such, only a consequential relief. He, therefore, held that the above two reliefs were covered by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court fees Act. The provisions of section 7 (iv) (c), as amended by the State of Punjab, and also applicable to Delhi read :-

"to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this sec















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top