2002 Supreme(MP) 8

S.P. Khare, J.
Shabbir Hussain v. Naade Ali
Civil Revision No. 884 of 2000 (J); Decided on 2.1.2002.*

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(a) and (c) -- court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 -- plaintiff is entitled to fix his own valuation -- as per provision of the 1870 Act u order of trial Court to value the suit premises on the basis of market value is incorrect -- impugned order set aside.

       

        LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½ rFkk ¼10½ & U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 & /kkjk 7 & oknh viuk ewY;kadu Lo;a fu;r djus dk gdnkj gS& 1870 vf/kfu;e ds mica/k ds vuqlkj & okn ifjlj dk cktkj ewY; ds vk/kkj ij ewY;kadu dk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k xyr gS & vk{ksfir vkns‘k vikLrA

       

        This is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order dated 15.3.2000 of the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 58-A of 1997 by which they have been directed to pay court-fee on the basis of the market value of the house in dispute for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

       

        The facts relevant for the present purpose pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are owners of the house in dispute on plot No. 33. Jawaharganj Jabalpur; defendants No. 1 to 3 are their tenants in one shop, defendant No.4 is tenant in another shop and the defendants No.5 to 7 are their tenants in the third shop; the rent of the shop with the defendants No.1 to 3 is Rs. 600/- per month; the defendants No.1 to 3 were recovering the rent of the two other shops and were remitting the same to the plaintiffs, these defendants have now started claiming that they are co-owners of this house. The present suit is for eviction of the defendants No.1 to 3 under section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs have also claimed the declaration that they are owners of this house and the defendants are their tenants. They have further claimed that the defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from recovering the rent from the defendants No.4 to 7 and they should be directed to pay the rent to the plaintiffs.

       

        The plaintiffs have valued the relief of eviction of the defendants No.1 to 3 as per section 7(xi)(c) of the Court Fees Act on the basis of monthly rent of the shop in their occupation as tenant for 12 months. They have also valued the relief for recovery of rent of Rs. 79,200/- on advalorem basis and paid Court fee accordingly. So far there is no dispute. It is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramnarain v. Atul Chander 1994(II) MPWN 123 = (1994) 4 SCC 349. The plaintiffs have valued the relief of declaration and permanent injunction at Rs. 600/- and paid court fee of Rs. 60/- thereon and that is disputed by the defendants. According to the plaintiffs they have paid the court-fee on the relief of declaration as per Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act and valued the relief of injunction at Rs. 300/and paid court-fee as per section 7(iv)(d) of the Act. On the other hand the argument of the defendants is that the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in this case has real money value and that value is the market value of the house and therefore the trial Court has rightly directed the plaintiffs to pay court-fee on the basis of the market value of the house as per section 7(iv)(c) of the act.

       

        After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the, opinion that the impugned order is not correct and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is proper. As mentioned above the suit for eviction of the defendants No.1 to 3 and for arrears of rent has been undisputably properly valued. So far as the valuation for declaration and permanent injunction is concerned the allegations in the plaint alone should be considered for computation of court-fee. It is well settled that the question of court-fee must be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced by the pleas in the written statement or by final decision of the suit on merits. This principle was laid down long back by the Supreme Court in Sathappa v. Ramnathan AIR 1958 SC 245. Now the allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the owners of the house and the defendants are their tenants; the defendants No.1 to 3 have now started claiming to be co-owners of the house and thus a cloud has been cast on the title of the plaintiffs and for removal of that cloud they are seeking the relief of declaration of title and also the consequential relief of permanent injunction as mentioned above. The relief of injunction in this case flows from the relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiffs. The two reliefs are not independent or unrelated. The valuation of the suit for purposes of Court fee should be as per section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and not according to Article 17(iii) of schedule II and section 7(iv)(d) of the Act. But for the said reliefs as prayed in the present case the market value of the house is not the criterion. The plaintiffs claim to be in juridical possession of the house through their tenants. They are not seeking possession of the house on the basis of their title. The suit under section 7(v)(c) of the Court Fees Act is required to be valued "according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued". The real basis of valuation is the value of the relief sought. Normally, the plaintiff is at liberty to value the relief claimed. The Court can correct it if it is arbitrary. It is not the value of the thing affected that settles the value of the relief sought. It is the value of the relief sought which has to be determined. What has to be valued is the relief and not the thing affected. The real relief claimed is the removal of the cloud cast on the title of the plaintiffs by the acts of the defendants. The subject matter of the suit covered by the reliefs of declaration and injunction is the cloud that has been cast and not the value of the property. The valuation of the said relief of declaration and injunction at Rs. 600/- is proper and it cannot on the facts pleaded in this case be said to be arbitrary or outrageous.

       

        In the recent decision of this Court in Rajkumar v. Kinetic Gallery 2000(2) MPLJ 72 all the earlier decisions on the point have been considered and it has been held that in cases flailing under section 7(iv) of the Act the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation. The Court normally accepts the valuation put by the plaintiff if it is not too low or high. The valuation at Rs. 300/- for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act was held to be proper and the valuation of Rupees three lacs was held to be exaggerated and was directed to be deleted.

       

        In the present case the relief of declaration and permanent injunction has been properly valued as per section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act and the order of the trial Court to value the same on the basis of the market value of the house is incorrect. The revision is allowed and the impugned order on this point is set aside. A copy of this order be sent to Shri Purshottam Bhatt, Additional Distlict Judge, Mandla for his future guidance.