1977 Supreme(MP) 526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.L. MALIK, J.
Amar Singh (Sardar) and another - Appellant
Vs.
Gurdarshan Singh (Sardar) & another - Respondents
C. Revn. No. 1015 of 1975 (J)
Decided On : 21-07-1977

Headnote:(1) Court - fees Act, 1870 - S. 7 (iv) (d) - suit for restraining defendants not to disturb plaintiff's possession - Court - fees should be paid on the injury or loss apprehended and not on the total value of the property - plaintiffs putting their own value to the relief claimed - Court should not interfere unless unreasonable or arbitrary.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 115 - defendant filing revision - trial Court erred in law in passing the impugned order against the plaintiff - High Court can correct the mistake even though the plaintiff had preferred no revision.

       Short Note

       1. The plaintiffs (non - applicants) claiming to be in possession of four contiguous plots measuring 1.55 acres, sued the defendants for restraining them by a permanent injunction not to interfere or disturb their possession. They valued this claim at Rs. 300 and paid Court - fee accordingly. The trial Court gave a finding that the market value of the land being Rs. 1.15 Nps per square foot, the plaintiffs ought to have valued their relief for injunction at Rs. 8,750. In reaching this figure, the Court took 7561 square foot to be the total land comprised in 1.55 acres. This was obviously an error and the defendants came up in revision, contending that the valuation calculated at the rate or Rs. 1.15 Nps per square foot came to over Rs. 75,000, the Court must, therefore, interfere and correct the mistake of calculation.

       Held : The plaint, as it is, falls under section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court - fees Act. The plaintiffs here want to avert a danger to their property already in their possession. The proper method of valuing the suit is according to the injury or loss apprehended. The loss obviously cannot be valued at the total value of the property in their possession. The plaintiffs have to put their own value to the relief claimed. Unless the valuation is unreasonable or arbitrary the Court should not interfere. The present suit was such that the plaintiffs had the option to put their own valuation. The Court had no basis to call that valuation arbitrary or unreasonable. In the result, therefore, the trial Court was in error in calling upon the plaintiffs to value the claim at the market price of the land. Though the plaintiffs have not come up in revision, the obvious error committed in misreading section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court - fees Act, must be corrected. The trial Court is directed to proceed on the valuation as put by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff need not pay Court - fee on Rs. 8750 unless they have already amended the plaint and paid the court fees Revision allowed for the benefit of the plaintiffs.