Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 784
[Citation : 2010(2) RLW 1142 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Ram Narayan & Ors. Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Mandalgarh (Lodha, J.)
HON'BLE SANGEET LODHA, J.
Ram Narayan & Ors.
Versus
Civil Judge (S.D.), Mandalgarh & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6721 of 2003, decided on 28.05.2009
Paramveer Singh for T.S. Champawat, for Petitioner;
Rakesh Chotia for Sachin Acharya, for Respondent No.2
Headnote:Rajasthan Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, Sec. 28 read with C.P.C., Sec. 6—Suit for possession of immovable property—Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court—Computation of Court fee — Held — Pecuniary jurisdiction is not determined on the basis of valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee but on amount of subject matter of the suit — Court exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction — Order set aside.
Petition allowed. (Para 12)
jktLFkku U;k;ky; 'kqYd vkSj okn ewY;kadu vf/kfu;e] 1961] /kkjk 28 lifBr fl-iz-la-] /kkjk 6 & vpy lEifr ds dCtkFkZ okn & U;k;ky; dh /ku lEcU/kh vf/kdkfjrk & U;k;ky; 'kqYd dh x.kuk djuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /ku laca/kh vf/kdkfjrk dk vo/kkj.k U;k;ky; 'kqYd ds iz;kstukFkZ okn ds ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij ugha fd;k tkrk cfYd okn dh fo"k; oLrq dh jkf'k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkrk gS & U;k;ky; us viuh /ku lEcU/kh vf/kdkfjrk dh vfr dh & vkns'k vikLr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 12½
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
Based on the latest judgments of the Rajasthan High Court concerning declaratory suits with injunctions filed by a non-executant of a disputed sale deed who is in possession and seeks to declare the deed null and void, the following principles are relevant:
-
Jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11: The filing of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a procedural step to challenge the maintainability of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction, including pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court evaluates whether the suit's valuation exceeds the pecuniary limits of the court. If the valuation is found to be beyond the court's jurisdiction, the suit can be dismissed or transferred accordingly (!) .
-
Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Declaratory Suit with Injunction: When a suit involves a declaration that a sale deed is null and void and seeks an injunction, the Court primarily considers the valuation of the suit for jurisdictional purposes. The valuation includes the value of the subject matter of the suit or the relief claimed, whichever is higher. If the valuation exceeds the pecuniary limits of the Court, the Court may lack jurisdiction, and the suit can be dismissed or transferred (!) .
-
Status of Non-Executant in Possession: The fact that the plaintiff is in possession and is a non-executant of the sale deed does not alter the jurisdictional principles but emphasizes the suit's nature as a declaratory relief combined with an injunction. The Court's focus remains on whether the suit's valuation falls within its pecuniary jurisdiction (!) .
-
Effect of Filing an Application under Order 7 Rule 11: Such an application is considered at the initial stage, and if the Court finds that the valuation exceeds its pecuniary limits, it can dismiss the suit or direct transfer to a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court's decision hinges on the valuation and the nature of the relief sought (!) .
-
Latest Judicial Trend: Recent judgments reinforce that the Court must strictly adhere to the pecuniary limits for jurisdiction when considering suits of this nature. The declaration of nullity of sale deeds and injunctions are within the jurisdiction of the Court where the valuation criteria are satisfied. If the valuation is beyond the prescribed limit, the Court cannot entertain the suit (!) .
Summary:
In light of the latest Rajasthan High Court judgments, a declaratory suit with an injunction filed by a non-executant in possession seeking to declare a sale deed null and void is subject to pecuniary jurisdiction. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed to challenge the suit's maintainability based on valuation. If the valuation exceeds the Court's pecuniary limits, the Court is likely to dismiss or transfer the suit, and such principles are consistently upheld in recent decisions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance regarding specific procedural steps.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963( in short “the Act of 1963” hereinafter) in respect of a house purchased by him by way of registered sale deed dated 16.3.02 from the defendants-petitioners. The suit is being contested by the defendants-petitioners by filing a written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the issues wherein Issue No. 5 was as to “whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of the Court ?”
3. The defendants-petitioners preferred an application under Order VII Rule 10 stating therein that the subject matter of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court therefore, the plaint deserves to be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation or the same may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
4. The plaintiff-respondent contested the application taking the stand that on a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 , the Court fee is payable on half of the market value of the property therefore, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court also deserves to be determined on the basis of the valuation of the suit. According to the defendants-petitioners since the market value of the property was determined at Rs.62,500/- and the Court fee was payable on half of the value of the property i.e. 31,250/- therefore, the suit was well within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court.
5. After due consideration of submissions of the parties to the suit, the learned trial Court vide order impugned decided the issue No. 5 as preliminary issue holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in regard to the disputed property is maintainable inasmuch as the Court fee paid on half of the market value of the disputed property is proper and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court shall also be determined accordingly.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners before this Court that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in entertaining the suit in regard to the disputed property which has been valued at Rs.62,500/- whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court is Rs.60,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction has to be determined on the basis of the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit and not on the basis of the valuation of the suit for the purpose payment of Court fees.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent relying upon the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1963 and Section 28 of the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act, 1961 submitted that the legal position has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court and the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Indisputably, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts is dealt with u/s 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which reads as under:-
“Sec. 6. Pecuniary jurisdiction.-Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operated to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits( if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.”
10. A bare perusal of the said provision goes to show that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court shall be determined on the basis of the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit. Obviously, if the value of subject matter of the suit exceeds the pecuni
