IMPORTANT POINT
Proper valuation for damages and consequences in agricultural cases must adhere to statutory guidelines of the Court Fees Act.

ORDER :

DEEPAK KHOT, J.

The present petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Garhakota, District Sagar in RCS-A No. 08-A/2023; whereby, the application submitted under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the petitioner/defendant has been dismissed.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below has not appreciated the law on the point of valuation of suit correctly, therefore, the order suffers from jurisdictional error and the learned Court below has committed material illegality and irregularity in not dealing with the question of law in its true perspective.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this court towards impugned order, wherein, the learned court below while dealing with the issue in regard to valuation has held that the land in question (subject matter of the suit) being an agricultural land has been valued properly and 20 times court fees on the land revenue has been paid, which is covered under Clause 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for brevity "the Act of 1870"). It is also held that Section 7 (vi-a) of the Act of 1870 will not be applicable in the present case in hand as Section 7 (vi-a) deals with the suit for partition, however, holding that the land, which is the subject matter of suit, being an agricultural land, court fees as per Section 7 (v) of the Act of1870 has been paid is in accordance with law.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said reasoning is against the settled principles of law as the relief of permanent injunction being a consequential relief, is covered under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act of 1870. The plaintiff has not paid the court fees in accordance with Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Act of 1870. The learned Court below has not appreciated that for partition, a distinct entry of section 7(vi-a) is legislated in the Act. It is also submitted that valuation for declaring the revenue orders as nullity has not been assessed properly. It is contended that the impugned order is against the settled principles of law and deserves to be quashed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is not disputed that the land in question is an agricultural land (subject matter of the suit). It is also not disputed that the suit has been filedfor declaration, partition and permanent injunction. It has been prayed that the share of 0.74 Hect. i.e 1.83 Acre of the disputed land, be separated as a share of the plaintiff. The suit has been valued on the basis of the sale consideration of the sale deed i.e Rs.40,000/- on which Rs.500/- as fixed Court fees for declaration and for permanent injunction 20 times of the land revenue i.e. Rs.200/- has been fixed on which Rs.120 court fees has been paid and also for partition Rs.120/- on the valuation of Rs.200/- (20 times on value of the agricultural land) has been paid.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the court fees is covered under section 7(vi-a) of the Act of 1870 as it is a suit for partition which will prevail over the entry as legislated under section 7(v) of the Act of 1870. However, it is seen from the application submitted by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, that the petitioner has only raised an objection that the suit is not valued at the market rate of the suit property and accordingly court fees has not been paid.

8. It is apt to mention here that the suit is valued on the sale consideration of the land for which relief for declaring the mutation done on the basis of such sale deed as nullity has been sought. It is also found that on such sale consideration court fees has been paid. Court fees has been paid for partitio