A plaintiff cannot manipulate suit valuation to confer jurisdiction; true claims must be determined substantively, ensuring court fee and jurisdiction align.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:

i) That the will alleged to have been executed by late Sh Mahendra Pal S/o, Raja Brij Mohan Pal, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and defendants No 1 to 3 is a sham transaction and does not effect the rights of his natural heirs namely plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3, who are the only persons entitled to succeed his estate in equal shares under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act as detailed in Schedules A and B to the plaint.

ii) In the alternative, in case the alleged will is proved to have been duly executed, it is incapable of being enforced in its entirety as it is highly vague and is capable of being interpreted in different ways by different persons and as such only the natural heirs of the deceased namely the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to succeed to the entire estate left behind by Sh Mahendra Pal deceased included in Schedules A and B to the plaint.

iii) Further, in the alternative if the alleged will is capable of being implemented in its entirety, even then it does not effect the rights of the plaintiffs in the co-parcenary property as detailed in Annexure A to the plaint and they are entitle to one- third share in this property.

iv) A decree for recovery of Rs 1. 10,000/- on account of use and occupation of House No 252, Sector 16, Chandigarh. occupied by defendant no I to 3 in excess of their respective shares in that house for the period from 21-7- 2014 to 31-12-2014. This amount is recoverable only from defendants 1 to 3.

v). A decree for recovery of Rs 55,000/- only on account of use and occupation of lands situated in six villages of Bagana Tehsil coming under the category of Co-parcenary property detailed in Annexure A to the plaint. This amount is recoverable from defendants 1 to 4 in equal shares for the period from 21-7- 2014 to 31-12-2014 on account of their enjoying the fruit of this land in excess of their respective shares. Any other relief which the plaintiff may be found to be entitled to may be also granted to them. The costs of the suit may also be awarded to the plaintiffs.

2. However, in para-23 of the plaint, the suit has been valued for the purpose of Court fee @ Rs. 1,65,000/- and Court fee of Rs. 6770/- has been paid. Whereas, in para-22 of the plaint, the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction has been valued @ Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, in respect of relief of declaration and Rs. 1,65,000/-, in respect of reliefs (ii) and (iii). Thus, the total value of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction has been assessed @ Rs. 2,01,65,000/-. Para-23 of the plaint is reproduced as under:

“That the Court fee payable on the reliefs of declaration is a fixed fee of Rs. 98/-. Since, the reliefs in A are in the alternative, only one Court fee of Rs. 98/- is payable. The values in respect of reliefs B and C are Rs. 1,65,000/- in total o which a Court fee of Rs. 6770 is payable. A total Court fee of Rs. 6770 is paid.”

3. In view of above, the question which arises for determination, before this Court, is about the fact whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit or not?

4. Admittedly, the plaintiff has sought relief of declaration, as well as, relief of recovery of Rs. 1,65,000/-. Although, pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court is based upon the valuation of suit, which depends upon the relief claimed therein. Valuation in the plaint determines the Court, in which, the suit can be presented.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, “Smt. Nandita Bose versus Ratanlal Nahata” , reported in (1987) 3 Supreme Court Cases 705, has h