Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Indermeet Kaur, J.
Zahoor Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
Rakhi Gupta & Ors. - Resopndent
C.R.P. 10 of 2012 and CM Nos. 1080-1082 of 2012
Decided On : 23-01-2012
Court Fee - Jurisdiction - Valuation for jurisdiction and court fee - Plaintiff claiming 1/7th share in suit property - Need to pay court fee for her share and value entire suit property for jurisdiction - Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming 1/7th share in the suit property, was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that for the purposes of jurisdiction, the valuation of the entire suit property had to be considered, while the plaintiff needed to pay court fee for her 1/7th share in the suit property.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of valuation for jurisdiction and court fee in a case where the plaintiff claimed a fractional share in the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates the return of the plaint to the plaintiff if the valuation for jurisdiction does not match the court fee paid.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to return the plaint to the plaintiff to be filed in the Court of competent authority following the procedure of Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code.
Cav. No. 67/2012
Respondent has put in appearance. Caveat has become infructuous. Dismissed.
C.R.P. 10/2012 and CM Nos. 1080-1082/2012
1. The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 12.12.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is only restricted to the fact that although admittedly the plaintiff in terms of the averments made in the plaint was claiming 1/7th share in the suit property, her right to pay the Court fee was admittedly on her 1/7th share only but for the purposes of jurisdiction, the valuation of the entire suit property had to be taken and not the valuation of her share alone and the Trial Court holding otherwise has committed an illegality.
3. Reliance by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in 44 (1991) DLT 528 titled as Ramesh Chand Bhardwaja v. R.P. Sharma, as also another judgment of a Bench of this Court in CS (OS) No. 2546/2010 titled as Anu v. Suresh Verma, delivered on 12.7.2011. There is no doubt that valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction has to be the value of the whole of the property which is the subject matter of partition whereas the valuation for the purposes of Court fee would be such as provided under the Court Fee Act. Since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and she is claiming 1/7th share in the suit property by virtue of said partition admittedly, she has to pay Court fee for her share in the suit property and valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction has to be the entire value of the suit property which is more than Rs. 60 lacs and as such in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff; plaint be returned to be filed in the Court of competent authority by following the procedure of the Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code.
4. With these directions, petition is disposed of.
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
