1984 Supreme(MP) 651

K. N. Shukla, J.
Evagelical Church v. Rev. Issu Prakash.
M. C. C. No. 34 of 1984 (J); Decided on 9-10-1984.

Headnote:(1) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- Art. 17 (vi), Sch. II -- suit for possession of religious property -- appurtenant land thereof is covered under this provision.

        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 47, R. 1 -- review -- amendment of provision not considered -- error is apparent.

        Applicants In this review petition filed a suit against the non-applicant for possession of a church and compound valued at Rs. 100/-, for possession of percentage valued at Rs 1500/-, for declaration valued at Rs. 300/- and for perpetual injunction valued at Rs. 300/- Total valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction had been computed at Rs. 4450/- and Court-fees of Rs. 486/- had been paid on the plaint.

        Defendant raised an objection about valuation for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction alleging that the property was worth Rs. 5,00,000/- and the suit should be valued for Court-fees and jurisdiction on this amount.

        The trial Court framed preliminary issues and held that the suit was property valued for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction.

        The defendant filed a revision against the said order. By the impugned order passed by this Court in C. R. 1365 of 1983, the trial Courts order was set aside and the Court below was directed to decide the question of Court-fees and valuation afresh with advertence to the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs and the observations made in this order. In the order passed by me in the revision petition, it was observed that the land and structure standing thereon had a market value and the suit for purposes of Court-fees and valuation is governed by Section 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act and not by Article S. 17 (vi) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. Learned counsel for the applicants invited my attention to para 17 of the plaint which relates to the valuation made by the plaintiffs and also to para 18 wherein various reliefs have been claimed. He submitted that in the written statement, objection about Court-fees was limited only to the relief of possession of personage and. therefore, no direction about valuation of the land and the Church building standing thereon was necessary. He further submitted that the Court overlooked the amendment to para (v) of section 7 of the Court-fees Act by M. P. Act No.4 of 1976 which prescribed the standard for valuation of land not assessed to land revenue.

        Held : After hearing counsel and perusing the pleadings of the parties. I find that there was an apparent error in the order passed by me on 17-1-84. I had failed to notice not only the amendment to section 7, clause (v) of the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, but also the fact that except for the personage, rest of the property in suit was a place of religious worship. The Church necessarily included the land appurtenant thereto and forming its boundary and, therefore, the entire suit property except personage was a place of religious worship. Claim for possession of the Church and the appurtenant land therefore, was covered by Article 17, Clause (vi) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. The decision of the Nagpur High Court in Pandit Motilal v. Shambhulal (AIR 1938 Nagpur 214), therefore, applied to the suit in question. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1271 of 1974, dated 25-12-76 [1977 (I) MPWN Note 167] and Civil Revision No. 446 of 1975, dated 31-8-1977 [1977 (II) MPWN Note 499].

        Plaintiffs had claimed in the plaint that the defendant was their tenant and had sought his ejectment from the personage. Court-fees at twelve times the rental was paid. This relief was properly valued. Other reliefs of declaration and injunction were also properly valued and no dispute about valuation of those reliefs was raised.

        For reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the order, dated 17-1-84 in Civil Revision No. 1365 of 1883 is reviewed accordingly. In the light of this order, the revision filed by tile defendant against the order, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Hoshangabad about the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction is dismissed and the order of the trial Judge is confirmed. AIR 1938 Nag. 214, 1977 (I) MPWN 167 and 1977 (II) MPWN 499 relied on. Review allowed. Order of trial Court confirmed.