1981 Supreme(MP) 534

K. N. Shukla, J.
Pramodkumar v. Bhind Central Co-op. Bank.
C. Revn. No. 561 of 1974 (G); Decided on 19-9-1981.

Headnote:(1) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) and Art. 17 Seh. II -- question of Court fees-plaint allegations to be seen -- plaintiff claiming Independent title -- properry also In nis possession no existing decree against deceased sought to be avoided -- case would govern by Art. 77-- no advalorem Court lee need be paid,

        (2) Court-fee -- valuation for purposes of -- plaint allegation alone to be seen.

        Defendant-non-applicant No. 1 the Central Cooperative Bank Bhind raised a preliminary point about adequacy of Court fee. According to the non-applicant Bank the suit ought to have been valued advalorem taking into consideration the market value of the property in respect of which declaration and injunction had been claimed.

        The Court below upheld the objection and directed the plaintiffs to specify the valuation of the suit for the purposes of declaration and permanent injunction. Although the Court below did not specify the provision of the Court Fees Act nor did give specific direction about the method of valuation, it appears that according to the learned trial Court, Court-fees was payable under section 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act advalorem of the valuation of the property in suit.

        Held: The question of valuation for purposes of Court fees has to be decided on the basis of the plaint allegations. This is now a well-established position and no controversy on this basic point was raised. The defence else has no relevance for deciding the question of valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fees. The relevant and crucial plain allegations have been referred to above while setting out the statement of the case. It was clear that plaintiffs did not expressly or impliedly prayed for setting aside the decree or the award against late Shri Harkishandas Bhuta. They did not claim under late Shri Harkishandas Bhuta either. They claimed title per amount on the basis of earlier partition and claimed to be in possession of the suit property also. On the basis of these pleadings, where no relief express of implied was sought for setting aside the decree against a person, the proper provision of the Court fees Act will be Article t 7 of Schedule II of the Act and not section 7 (iv) (c) thereof. 1967 JLJ 350 and 1970 JLJ 290 followed. AIR 1975 SC 2384 and 1974 JLJ 108 distinguished. Revision allowed.