1980 Supreme(MP) 473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K. N. Shukla, J.
Bhagwati - Appellant
Vs.
Chamar Rai - Respondent
C. Revn. No. 1236 of 1979 (J)
Decided On : 13-02-1980

Headnote:(1) Court Fee Act, 1870 – S. 7 (v) – partition suit of agricultural land – Court – fee payable – whether on market value of on 20 times of land revenue.

       (2) Court – Fee Act, 1870 – S. 7 (vi – a) – omission of explanation from the sub – section – makes no difference – Court – fee still payable on 20 time of land revenue.

       (3) Interpretation of Statutes – rule of harmonious construction – intention of legislature to be seen – different interpretation leading conflict between two clauses to be avoided.

        Short Note

       1. The plaintiff – applicant instituted a suit for partition ant separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit lands which are separately assessed to land revenue. She valued her suit at Rs. 480 which was half of the twenty times of land revenue. The defendant – non – applicant challenged the correctness of the valuation. The Trill Court framed a preliminary issue and held that the claim should have been valued in accordance with the actual market value of her share therein.

       2. The question for consideration is whether in a claim for partition and separate possession of lands assessed to land revenue, the valuation should be in accordance with the actual market value of the share or the deemed market value i. e., twenty times of the land revenue. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that omission of the Explanation to paragraph (vi – a) of section 7 indicate the legislature intent that in a suit for partition and separate possession of lands assessed to land revenue, the share has to be valued in accordance with the actual market value and not in accordance with the deemed market value.

       3. Held : Perusal of clause (vi – a) of section 7 shows that in a suit for partition, without claiming separate possession, the suit has to be valued according to one – half of the value of the plaintiff's share of the property. This is indicative of the facts that Court – fees payable on such a suit is less than the Court – fees payable when a suit is instituted for partition and separate possession on the ground that the plaintiff is out of possession. The legislative intent is thus clear that when a plaintiff claims partition and separate possession on the ground that be is out of possession, the claim is to be valued just like a suit for possession simpliciter. In fact when a co – owner files a suit for partition and separate possession, on the ground that he is out of possession, there is no difference between such a suit and a suit for possession based on title.

       4. The Amendment to the Court Fees Act (Act No. 4 of 1976) with effect from 1 – 3 – 1976 was introduced to clarify that even in cases where possession of a part of the land separately assessed to land revenue was claimed, Court – fees payable on such claim will be proportionately worked out for such part of the land. This clarification had become necessary to get over some judgments which had laid down that where the claim was for the entire land separately assessed to land revenue, its market value will be deemed to be twenty times the land revenue but if it was for a part of land and that part was not separately assessed, tile claim will have to be valued on the actual market value. The intention was to provide relief to agriculturists and the owners of land revenue paying lands.

       5. A harmonious construction of paragraphs (v) and (vi) of section 7 will show that the legislature intended that the market value of a land revenue paying land for both the clauses will be the same, that is, twenty times the land revenue as provided under clause (v). A different interpretation will create a conflict in these two clauses inasmuch as in a suit for possession simpliciter of land assessed to land revenue, the plaintiff will be required to pay twenty times the land revenue, while in a suit for partition and separate possession, when plaintiff is out of possession, he will be required to pay Court – fees on the actual market value. We cannot attribute such an inconsistency to the legislative intent. Gujabai v. Salubai and others, 34 MPLC 98 = AIR 1947 Nag. 243, relied on. Revision allowed.