Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 463 (ORI)

Siva Prasad Aich v. United Leasing Company

2013-10-30

S.K.MISHRA

body2013
ORDER : The plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.4 of 2008 of the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jajpur Road have assailed the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the said court giving direction to the plaintiffs to value the suit as per the market rate and pay ad valorem court fee thereon. 2. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit to declare communal right over the suit land alleging that the same has been used by the community for different purposes like grazing, cremation, path etc., though the suit land has been recorded in the name of the defendants-opposite parties. The suit was presented and the same was valued at Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It was admitted. The defendants appeared and filed written statement. They did not challenge the valuation of the suit in written statement. Consequently, no issues were cast regarding the valuation of the suit. 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence. After closure of evidence, at the stage of final arguments, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jaipur Road has passed the order to value the suit as per the market rate of the land in question. While passing the order impugned, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) has taken into consideration the valuation report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Dolipur, which reveals that plot Nos. 330 and 331 were valued @ Rs.25,000/- per acre, Rs.9,75,000/- for plot Nos. 330 & 331 measuring Ac.0.39 decimals. The valuation of plot No. 298 is Rs.3,75,000/- for Ac.1.50 decimals, which is valued at Rs.2,50,000/-. The valuation of plot No. 43/2407 is Rs.5,00,000/- per acre but the area of the suit plot No. 43/2407 is Ac.0.30 decimals and its valuation is Rs.1,50,000/-. On the valuation report furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Dolipur for the aforesaid four plots measuring an area of Ac.2.19 decimals values up to Rs.15,00,000/- as per valuation report, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) has passed the order impugned. The Sub-Registrar, Dolipur has not furnished the valuation of rest Ac.24.94 decimals of land as the same is not available in the office. The Sub-Registrar, Dolipur has not furnished the valuation of rest Ac.24.94 decimals of land as the same is not available in the office. Thereafter, learned Civil Judge (S.D.) taken into consideration the fact that P.W.1 in cross-examination has admitted that the value of the suit land will be fifteen crores as per the market rate and he has again admitted that the Government valuation of the suit in 2008 was ten crores for 27 acres of land and they have valued the suit land at Rs.15,000/-, which is not true and void. Therefore, the aforesaid impugned order has been passed. 4. In Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the dispute between the litigant and the registry in respect of court fees, arises at the initial stage of the presentation of the plaint or the appeal and the defendant or the respondent is usually not interested in such a dispute unless the question of payment of court fees is involved also question of jurisdiction of the court to try the suit or to entertain the appeal. In the case of Smt. Tara Devi v. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaja, AIR 1987 SC 2085 the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the note of the rulings given in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra) and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, AIR 1979 SC 989 and held that the plaintiff has the right to value the relief claimed according to his own estimation and such valuation has to be ordinarily accepted. The Apex Court further added that the plaintiff has not been given absolute right or option to place any valuation whatsoever on such relief and where the plaintiff manifestly and deliberately underestimates the relief, the Court is entitled to examine the valuation given by the plaintiff and revise the same if it is patently arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. The Apex Court further added that the plaintiff has not been given absolute right or option to place any valuation whatsoever on such relief and where the plaintiff manifestly and deliberately underestimates the relief, the Court is entitled to examine the valuation given by the plaintiff and revise the same if it is patently arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. In the case of Kedarnath Biswal & others v. Budhanath Jena & others, (2008) 106 CLT 595 : (AIR 2009 (NOC) 719 (Ori)), this Court has held that on close and composite reading of provision of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1970 along with different reported cases, one can comfortably infer that a suit for declaration coupled with consequential relief, the plaintiff as per the provision of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court- fees Act, 1870 can value the suit at his option, but such valuation cannot be arbitrary and must have some relation with the real market value of the property at the time of institution of the suit. Taking into consideration various reported cases, this Court in Prafulla Chandra Das v. Anem Bhengra alias Munda, (2009) 108 CLT 821 : (AIR 2011 (NOC) 74 (Ori)) has held that the legal position can be summarized that normally valuation made by the plaintiff has to be accepted by the Court but where such valuation under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 is demonstratively undervalued and is arbitrary and unreasonable, the Court must direct the plaintiff to correct it. 6. In applying these principles to the case at hand, it is seen that at the time of admission of the suit, the question of valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction was not considered. Even in the written statement the defendants have not challenged this aspect of the case. The court has not cast any issue relating to the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee. In such circumstances, is it within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, at the midst of the hearing arguments for final decision of the suit, to direct the plaintiffs-petitioners to change the valuation and pay the court fee. This Court is of the opinion that though the court has the jurisdiction to give such directions, in the present case the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Puri has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity and, therefore, the same requires interference. This Court is of the opinion that though the court has the jurisdiction to give such directions, in the present case the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Puri has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity and, therefore, the same requires interference. When a suit is admitted and there is no issue regarding the court fee or valuation of the suit at the time of admission, it is not proper for the Court to give directions to the parties to re-value the suit in the absence of some supervening circumstances. It is not apparent from the records that who called for the valuation made by the Sub-Registrar, Dolipur. It is also not apparent from the records that the court itself called for valuation of the suit land from the Sub-Registrar. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) has exercised his jurisdiction conferred upon with material irregularity by directing the plaintiffs-petitioners to revalue the suit as per the market value of the suit land. The proper approach would have been to decide the matter at the final disposal of the suit. If the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) feels that such suit is under-valued while finally disposing the suit, it may direct the plaintiffs to pay the court fee as per the valuation determined by the court after taking into consideration the materials on record. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Jaipur Road in Civil Suit No.4 of 2008 is set aside. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.) is directed to complete hearing of the arguments and pass his judgment in the suit as per law. The writ petition and pending misc. cases are accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.