Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1970 DIGILAW 90 (GAU)

Laishram Aber Singh v. Pebam Subhas Chandra Singh

1970-12-02

R.S.BINDRA

body1970
ORDER :- Two real brothers, P. Subhas Chandra Singh and P. Phulendra Singh, the grandsons of P. Gokulchand Singh, who was admittedly the owner of the property in dispute, filed a suit for declaration of their title to that property and by way of consequential relief they prayed for possession thereof. The property is at present in occupation of L. Aber Singh, who was cited as defendant No. 1 in the plaint. L. Aber Singh pleaded in his written statement that he had purchased the property from the plaintiffs per registered deed dated 21-12-1962 through their mother Tamubi Devi, the defendant No. 1, who acted as their guardian, they being minors on the date of sale and their father having died. The plaintiffs allegation in that respect was that their mother had no authority to sell the property either in her own right or in her capacity as their guardian. The suit was valued at Rs. 350/- both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction on the basis that the suit fell under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act. 2. The defendant No. 1 L. Aber Singh alleged in Para. 8 of his written statement that the property in dispute being of the market value of Rs. 3,000/-on the date of the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs had undervalued the suit and so had not paid the proper court-fees. 3. Issue No. 4 bearing on the valuation of the suit both for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue. The Munsiff who tried the issue reached the conclusions by his order dated 10-10-1969 that the suit falls under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act and so the plaintiff "is at liberty to give his valuation and the said valuation has ordinarily to be accepted by the Courts in computing the court-fees payable in respect of the relief," and added that "All that the Court can see is that the valuation given by the plaintiffs is fair and reasonable having regard to the value of the subject-matter." He, therefore, held that the suit had been properly valued. 4. The defendant No. 1 having felt aggrieved has come up in revision to this Court. 5. 4. The defendant No. 1 having felt aggrieved has come up in revision to this Court. 5. Shri Charugopal Singh urged for the revision petitioner that the Munsiff having held that it is open to the trial Court to determine whether the valuation given by the plaintiffs is fair and reasonable having regard to the value of the subject-matter, it was obligatory for him to find out further if the valuation fixed by the plaintiffs was fair and reasonable and that that haying not been done the order under revision has to be quashed. It was not disputed by Shri Charugopal Singh, however, that for the purpose of court-fee the suit properly falls under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act. Respecting all the six varieties of suits covered by Section 7 (iv), the court-fees is to be paid "according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal." It is further stated in Section 7 (iv) that in all the six varieties of suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. Obviously, the Legislature has left the matter of fixation of the value of the relief sought for the purpose of court-fees in such suits at the sole discretion of the plaintiff. Nothing said in the Section 7 (iv) gives right to the Court to determine whether the valuation given by the plaintiff is fair and reasonable in the context of the value of the subject-matter involved. Shri Charugopal Singh cited AIR 1964 Manipur 9 , Sanayaima Singh v. Ibeyaima Devi, to support the contention that it is open to the Court to find out if the plaintiff has been fair in the matter of fixing the valuation of the relief sought. It is correct that there is an observation in Para. 15 of the report that "All that the Court can see is that the valuation given by the plaintiff is fair and reasonable having regard to the value of the subject-matter, if it is capable of valuation." It is also correct that the Court had to deal there with a case under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act. 15 of the report that "All that the Court can see is that the valuation given by the plaintiff is fair and reasonable having regard to the value of the subject-matter, if it is capable of valuation." It is also correct that the Court had to deal there with a case under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act. I find myself unable to subscribe the aforementioned observation made in the reported case, for nothing said in Section 7 (iv) (c) warrants interference on the part of the Court with the valuation made by the plaintiff. If there is apprehension that the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (c) are liable to be abused by unscrupulous plaintiffs the remedy lies with the appropriate legislature and not with the Courts whose function is to administer laws and not to legislate. It is common knowledge that a large member of States in India have already made suitable amendments to Section 7 (iv) (c). However, until any amendment is made the matter of valuation entirely rests in the hands of the plaintiff and the Court cannot interfere with the valuation fixed by him even though it happens to be capricious. 6. The matter appears to have been finally settled by the Supreme Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan, AIR 1958 SC 245 , wherein it was observed : "If the scheme laid down for the computation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub-sections of Section 7 is considered, it would be clear that in respect of suits falling under subSection (iv), a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of court-fees. The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness......That is why the Legislature has left it to the option of the plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of court-fees." Shri Charugopal Singh was unable to cite any authority of the Supreme Court to the contrary. Nor could he urge on the basis of principle that if the Legislature has given an option to the plaintiff to evaluate a relief in certain varieties of suits, it is within the power of the Court to revise that valuation on the footing that it is absurd in the context of the value of the subject-matter. Therefore, I cannot agree with the observation made by this Court in the case of Sanayaima Singh, AIR 1964 Manipur 9 (supra), that the Court has to ensure that the plaintiff has put a fair and reasonable valuation on the relief sought in the context of the market price of the subject-matter. 7. This takes me to the consideration of the question whether the valuation fixed by the plaintiffs in respect of a suit covered by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act for the purpose of court-fee shall also be the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. The reply to the question is furnished by Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, which provides that where in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix) and paragraph (x) clause (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. Since a suit under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act falls within the scope of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the valuations for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction have to be identical. This view gathers corroboration from the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sathappa Chettiar. AIR 1958 SC 245 (supra). The Supreme Court observed in that case that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees, that the computation of court-fees in suits falling under Section 7 (iv) of the Court-Fees Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim, and that once, the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. Therefore, once the plaintiffs of our case have fixed the value of the suit at Rs. Therefore, once the plaintiffs of our case have fixed the value of the suit at Rs. 350/- for the purpose of court-fees that shall also be the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. 8. As a result, I hold that the trial Courts finding that the suit had been properly valued for the purposes of court-fees as well as jurisdiction was sound in law. Hence, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.