1972 Supreme(HP) 52

Himachal Pradesh High Court
R. S. PATHAK,CHET RAM THAKUR
Municipal Committee, Simla - Appellant
Versus
Gurdial Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 08/03/1972

In any suit for accounts, Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-Fees Act, as also Order 7, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code authorise a plaintiff to give his own valuation for purposes of court-fee and under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the valuation for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is the same and the forum of appeal in a suit for accounts would depend on the valuation of relief as set out in the plaint and not on the amount for which a decree may have been passed.

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - APPEAL - VALUE OF SUBJECT MATTER - SUIT FOR ACCOUNTS - VALUATION FOR PURPOSES OF COURT-FEE AND JURISDICTION - FORUM OF APPEAL.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff auctioned the lease of the right of collection and recovery of parking fee for motor vehicles on the Motor Stand, Simla, during the year commencing from 1st April, 1958 and ending on 31st March 1959. The highest bid for Rs. 6100/- was of defendant No. 1, acting for and on behalf of defendant No. 2 as its proprietor. This bid was accepted by the plaintiff. Out of the lease money the defendant paid Rs. 3125/- to the plaintiff on various dates and entered into an agreement (P.B.) for payment of the balance. According to the plaintiff the balance due from the defendants was Rs. 2975/- and which they failed to pay despite several demands. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount. He fixed the value of the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee at Rs. 2975/-. The suit was resisted on a number of grounds, giving rise to the following issues: 1. Is the document dated 17th October, 1958 marked P.B. a lease and compulsorily registrable? 2. If so what is the effect of non-registration of the document on its validity or admissibility in evidence? 3. Is P.B. insufficiently stamped and if so what is its effect? 4. Was there no valid agreement between the parties to the suit? 5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? The suit was dismissed with costs. Against this judgment and decree dismissing the suit the plaintiff went in appeal to the District Judge, who accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case to the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla under Order 41' Rule 23-A Civil Procedure Code for a fresh trial and decision, after allowing the plaintiff-appellant to amend the plaint in the light of observations made by him. After the remand the Senior Subordinate Judge allowed the amendment as would be found incorporated in Para No. 7 of the plaint. In Para No. 10 of the amended plaint the value of the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee was fixed at Rs. 2975/-, and also claimed a decree for Rs. 2975/- with costs of the suit and future interest from date of suit till date of realization of the amount or in the alternative prayed for rendition of the accounts from the defendants of the amounts received by them as parking fee during the year 1958-59 and for a decree for the total amount thus received. After the remand the Senior Subordinate Judge framed the following issues in the case: 1. What is the effect of the District Judge's finding (in the remand order) about Exhibit P.B., dated 17th October, 1958? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation or damages, if so how much? Issue No. 1 is not relevant for the persent purpose. Issue No. 2 was split up into two parts: (a) whether the defendants are liable or not, and (b) for how much amount. He held on the first part of the issue that the defendants were not liable. On the second part it was held: "Although in view of the above findings no decree can be passed against the defendants still the point has to be decided." He discussed the evidence and concluded: "So the advantage to be restored to the Municipal Committee would come up to Rs. 5354/- had the defendants been held liable and I hold accordingly. But since the defendants were found not to be liable, so the suit is dismissed." It is against this judgment and decree dismissing the suit that the appeal was filed in this Court.

Finding of the Court:

The valuation for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction has been fixed at Rs. 2,975/- even in the amended plaint. The Court found that the defendant was not liable for damages. It was because of the fact that the appellate Court had remanded the case and in order to obviate the necessity of a further remand the trial Court gave a finding in the alternative that Rs. 5,354/- was the amount which the defendant could be asked to restore to the plaintiff on account of damages for use and occupation of the premises. But the ultimate result was that the suit was dismissed, and that way the plaintiff was held entitled to nothing. It was not obligatory on the Court to record a finding whether the defendant was liable to restore the benefit amounting to Rs. 5,354/- when from the material on the record it had come to a definite finding that the defendant was not liable to pay anything.

Issues: 1. Whether the document dated 17th October, 1958 marked P.B. a lease and compulsorily registrable? 2. If so what is the effect of non-registration of the document on its validity or admissibility in evidence? 3. Is P.B. insufficiently stamped and if so what is its effect? 4. Was there no valid agreement between the parties to the suit? 5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for accounts the petitioner can get a decree for an amount exceeding the one which he has fixed arbitrarily for relief under Order 7, Rule 2, but that decree cannot be executed unless he actually makes up the deficiency of the court-fee. In case of appeal also it is that amount which has been decreed, on which he shall have to pay court-fee. But the jurisdictional value will remain the same as fixed in the plaint being the subject-matter of the suit. In the instant case no decree has been passed, therefore, the question of payment of any court-fee so as to entitle the plaintiff to fix the amount at Rs. 5,000/- and odd for purposes of jurisdiction and to take it away from the jurisdiction of the District Judge and come straight to the High Court, in my opinion, does not appear to be the correct valuation.

Final Decision: Appeal returned for presentation to the proper Court.