Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 742 (MP)

Manoj Kushwah v. Chhotelal

2014-06-30

ROHIT ARYA

body2014
ORDER Arya, J. -- 1. By this revision petition under section 115 of CPC, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 7.5.2014 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in civil suit No.71A/2013 by which petitioner/defendant No.1’s application under order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition in narrow compass are that defendant No.1 has filed an application under order VII Rule 11 CPC, inter alia contending that though the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed in question is null and void as against him, the suit has been valued on the basis of land revenue payable on the agricultural land which is the subject matter of the sale deed whereas the sale consideration in the sale deed is Rs.6.00 lacs. According to the defendant No.1, the suit ought have been valued on the basis of sale consideration and accordingly, ad valerom court fee was required to be paid. 3. Trial Court has found that the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 28.2.2006. Plaintiff has also not claimed the relief of possession as he is in possession over the suit land. Accordingly, plaintiff has sought a declaration that the sale deed be declared as null and void against him and, therefore, plaintiff is not required to affix the court fee on the basis of sale consideration shown in the sale deed. Trial Court has further found that the suit has been properly valued under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Proper court fee has not paid. Accordingly, dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has wrongly justified the court-fee paid by the plaintiff as well as valuation of the suit. The trial Court has committed an error having rejected the objection of the defendant No.1 in that behalf and, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the material on record has been perused. 6. The trial Court has committed an error having rejected the objection of the defendant No.1 in that behalf and, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the material on record has been perused. 6. As the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed and the plaintiff has only claimed the relief of declaration that the sale deed is null and void as against him, therefore, the plaintiff is required to affix fixed court-fees for the aforesaid relief as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2010 SC 2807 , Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others :- “7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the “coparcenery” and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court-fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial Court and the High Court were, therefore, not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that, therefore, court-fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds.” 7. Law as regards suit valuation under section 8 of the Act is well settled and the provision is quoted below :- “8. Court fee value and jurisdiction value to be the same in certain suits. - Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 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 valud for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.” 8. Since the value for the purpose of jurisdiction of the suit shall be dependent upon the value to be determined for computation of court-fee, the trial Court has rightly found that the suit was properly valued by the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction. For ready reference, the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 S.Ram. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Ram. Ar. Rm Ramanathan Chettiar (para 15) is referred to. “15..... For ready reference, the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 S.Ram. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Ram. Ar. Rm Ramanathan Chettiar (para 15) is referred to. “15..... There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of S.8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees and that is natural enough. The computation of court-fees in suits failing under section 7(iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purpose of court-fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa. Incidentally we may point out that according to the appellant it was really not necessary in the present case to mention Rs.15,00,000/- as the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction since on plaints filed on the original side of the Madras High Court prior to 1953 there was no need to make any jurisdictional valuation.” 9. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 10. The revision petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.