In a suit for a declaration and consequential relief, the value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is to be fixed by the plaintiff and cannot be compelled to adopt the jurisdictional value as the value for purposes of court-fee.

Headnote:
COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 7(IV)(C) - SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF - VALUE FOR PURPOSES OF COURT-FEE AND JURISDICTION - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7(IV)(C) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that a sum of Rs. 52,000/- lying to the credit of the defendant in the current account of the State Bank of India at Ferozepore exclusively belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff treated this suit as a purely declaratory one and paid fixed court-fee of Rs. 19.50 nP. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge. The Second Additional District Judge held that proper value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 52,000/- and consequently returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the Court of proper jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a revision petition challenging the finding of the Senior Subordinate Judge holding that it has no jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the suit in question fell under S. 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. It was originally wrongly treated as a suit for mere declaration. No value for purposes of court-fee was fixed. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, must be given an opportunity to fix such a value, and in fact he has already fixed that value at Rs. 195/- and he cannot be compelled to fix it at any higher value, and consequently the value for purposes of jurisdiction for the purpose of the suit as well as the appeal must be treated to be Rs. 195/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act? 2. Whether the plaintiff can be compelled to adopt the jurisdictional value as the value for purposes of court-fee? 3. Whether the amendment of Section 7(iv)(c) is applicable to the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The suit in question fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act as it sought a declaration and consequential relief. 2. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to adopt the jurisdictional value as the value for purposes of court-fee as he has already fixed that value at Rs. 195/-. 3. The amendment of Section 7(iv)(c) is not applicable to the present case as it relates only to suits relating to property of which method of calculation of value is given in clause (v) and not to other suits.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The orders of the learned Second Additional District Judge as well as the Senior Subordinate Judge were set aside. The petitioner was directed to re-present the memorandum of appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge within one month from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT :- Facts leading to this revision petition may shortly be stated as follows : On 2nd May 1961 a suit was brought by Bawa Bir Singh against Ali Niwaz Khan who had migrated to Pakistan praying for a declaration to the effect that a sum of Rs. 52,000/- lying to the credit of the defendant in the current account of the State Bank of India at Ferozepore exclusively belonged to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was entitled to receive this amount from the State Bank, Ferozepore, and that the defendant was not entitled to receive the same. The plaintiff treated this suit as a purely declaratory one and in paragraph 9 of the plaint he mentioned that the court-fee payable was fixed, being Rs. 19.50 nP., and the value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 52,000/-. The case proceeded ex parte but after the recording of the ex parte evidence the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge on 14th February 1962. Apart from other grounds, it is necessary to refer to ground No. 11 which is to the following effect : -

"That on a declaratory suit court-fee payable is Rs. 19.50 nP. under Schedule II, Article 17, Court-fees Act. According to the Court-fees Act, the value for jurisdiction is Rs. 195/- and for this reason the appeal is cognisable by this Court and has been filed within limitation and this matter is purely legal. Mention in the plaint by the plaintiff that value for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 52,000/- is not admitted to be correct because the suit in question is one for a declaration plus consequential relief".

In other words, in the appeal the petitioner himself raised the point that the dispute originally brought was one for a declaration and consequential relief and, consequently, value for purposes of court-fee could be fixed by the plaintiff at his own choice, and in a way he treated Rs. 195/- as the value for purposes of court-fee, although in the plaint he had not given any value for purposes of Court-fee and value for purposes of jurisdiction was given as Rs. 52,000/-. For administrative reasons the appeal was transferred to the file of the District Judge and entrusted to the Second Additional Judge who held that proper value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 52,000/- and consequently returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the Court of proper jurisdiction. Strangely enough, instead of presenting the appeal to the High Court, the petitioner presented the appeal again to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge who, as was to be expected, in view of the finding of the Second Additional District Judge, returned the memorandum again. That memorandum has not been filed in this Court. On the other hand the present revision has been filed challenging the finding of the Senior Subordinate Judge holding that it has no jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner urges that the suit as framed was one for a declaration and consequential relief and therefore properly fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and was not a suit for a mere declaration falling under Article 17 of the Second Schedule to the Court-fees Act. In this respect he refers to two decisions of the Bombay High Court - "Bhimsangji Chhatrasangji v. Dolatsangji Hamersangji, AIR 1925 Bom 282(1) and Hafizulla v. Wakf Committee, Kolaba, AIR 1946 Bom 167. In the first case a Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a suit in which the plaintiff sought "a declaration that he was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak annuity of Rs. 500/- received by Bai Surajkuvar as her heir and as such entitled to recover the same" was a suit which fell under Section 7(iv)(c), and, as the value for purposes of court-fee was fixed at Rs. 500/-, the jurisdictional value was also treated to be the same. In Hafizullas case, AIR 1946 Bom 167, the head-note is as follows :

"In order that a suit should fall within Section 7(iv)(c) the consequential relief prayed f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1963 Supreme(P&H) 126

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANAHARBANS SINGH, J.Bawa Bir Singh s/o Bawa Dula SinghVersusAli Niwaz Khan s/o Shah Niwaz KhanCivil Revn. No. 560 of 1962Decided On : 26-07-1963

In a suit for a declaration and consequential relief, the value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is to be fixed by the plaintiff and cannot be compelled to adopt the jurisdictional value as the value for purposes of court-fee.

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
HARBANS SINGH, J.
Bawa Bir Singh s/o Bawa Dula Singh
Versus
Ali Niwaz Khan s/o Shah Niwaz Khan
Civil Revn. No. 560 of 1962
Decided On : 26-07-1963