Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 351 (UTT)

Agra Diocesan Trust Association v. Anil David

2019-05-27

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. By means of aforementioned writ petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2016, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, in Suit no. 24 of 2013 as well as in Suit no. 25 of 2013, both titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David and others, whereby issue nos. 8 and 9 were decided against the petitioner / plaintiff. 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, the same are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit, being O.S. no. 24 of 2013, titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David and others, in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 3. Another suit, being O.S. no. 25 of 2013, also titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David and others, was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent no. 3. A further relief has been sought for granting permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. 4. Defendants filed their written statements. It is contended that the relief of cancellation of sale deed in question has been sought, but the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. 5. Learned trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed the issues in both the suits. Identical issue nos. 8 and 10 were framed to the following effect: (viii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is undervalued? (x) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient? 6. Learned trial court by impugned order dated 23.04.2016 recorded the findings against the plaintiff / petitioner and has held that the suits filed by the plaintiff is under valued and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. Feeling aggrieved against the same, aforementioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 7. Mr. 6. Learned trial court by impugned order dated 23.04.2016 recorded the findings against the plaintiff / petitioner and has held that the suits filed by the plaintiff is under valued and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. Feeling aggrieved against the same, aforementioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 7. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land in dispute is an agricultural land. The plaintiff is not party to the sale deed, therefore, the learned trial court has committed illegality in deciding the issues against the plaintiff and in directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on market value. He would further submit that since the land in dispute is an agricultural land, therefore, the petitioners are obliged to pay the court fee on the revenue payable as fixed by the State Government in view of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act. 8. Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is excerpted here-in-below for convenience: "[For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decrees. -7(iv-A) In suit for or involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other property having a market value, or an instrument securing money or other property having such value : (1) where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title was a party to the decree or the instrument, according to the value of the subject-matter; and (2) where he or his predecessor-in-title was not a party to the decree or instrument, according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to be- if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed or the instrument executed, and if only a party of the decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount or value of the property to which such part relates. Explanation. -The value of the property for the purpose of this sub-section shall be the market-value, which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B), as the case may be." 9. Explanation. -The value of the property for the purpose of this sub-section shall be the market-value, which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B), as the case may be." 9. It is contended that in view of section 7(iv-A) of the Act, petitioners have to pay the court fee 1/5 on the 30 times of the revenue payable. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on following judgments: (A) Smt. Savita Agrawal vs Sarada Math Nyas through Pravajika Prabha Prana (Sanyasi), Adhyaksha and others,2006 100 RevDec 705. Paragraph 5 and 6 of said judgment are extracted hereunder: "5. Under section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act of the Court Fees Act,1870 (as amended by State of U.P. applicable to Uttarakhand), in a suit for cancellation of an instrument (including sale deeds), the property involved in required to be valued at the amount mentioned in instrument or value of the property to which such instrument relates. It is further provided in the Explanation to said sub-Section (iv-A) that 'value of the property' for the purposes of the sale deed shall be market value which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with subsections (v), (v-A) or (v-B), as the case may be. Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act,1870, provides that where the revenue is settled in respect of a land the market value of such land shall be assessed at 30 times of such revenue. In view of said provision of law, neither the suit appears to be under valued, nor the court fee paid appears to be insufficient. Therefore, finding on issue no. 3 given by the trial court needs no interference. 6. On issue no. 5, it is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist that in view of provisions of section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act,1882, all the trustees are necessary to be impleaded for maintaining the suit on behalf of the trust. This Court agrees with the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that the suit should have been filed on behalf of a trust by all the trustees unless the person in duly authorized to act in this behalf. However, mere that argument doesn't help the defendant / revisionist. This Court agrees with the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that the suit should have been filed on behalf of a trust by all the trustees unless the person in duly authorized to act in this behalf. However, mere that argument doesn't help the defendant / revisionist. For throwing a suit on said ground, the defendant should have pleaded which of the trustees of the trust are left out and not made a party to the suit. The defendant / revisionist failed to show or name the trustee, who is not impleaded or has not authorized the plaintiff to maintain the suit. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly decided issue no. 5 in negative and in favour of the plaintiff." (B) Smt. Mamta Singh and another vs Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow and others, (2014) 106 AllLR 172 . Paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of said judgment are excerpted here-in-below: "7. The controversy involved in the case in hand is; what would be the market value for the purpose of suit for cancellation in respect of agricultural land? 8. the court on the basis of provisions contained in sub-section (v) of Section 7 of the Act decided the suit for the purpose of determination of Court-fee, which will be on the basis of annual rent assessed by the Collector and not on the basis of actual consideration passed under the sale deed. 9. Similarly, the suit for the purpose of valuation for pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was also determined in accordance with provisions of suit valuation on the basis of annual rent assessed by the Collector. 10. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that value determined for the payment of court-fee as well as for pecuniary jurisdiction of the court would be the same. The trial court decided the issued in light of the provisions of sub section (v) of Section 7 of the Act for payment of Court-fees and in the light of Suits Valuation Act for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. There appears no mistake or any violation of statutory provision while passing the impugned orders by the courts below." (C) Gurmeet Kaur (Smt.) vs III Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 2003 1 ARC 553. Paragraph no. 6 of said judgment is being reproduced here-in-below: "6. There appears no mistake or any violation of statutory provision while passing the impugned orders by the courts below." (C) Gurmeet Kaur (Smt.) vs III Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 2003 1 ARC 553. Paragraph no. 6 of said judgment is being reproduced here-in-below: "6. There is no dispute that the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the purposes of stamp duty can not be taken to be final as regards the market value of the land of that particular area. The market value of the land may be higher to the circle rate but the value of the land has to be fixed on some basis including the potentiality of the land. It is true that the Valuer's report was not contested but even then, in my opinion, before accepting finally the Valuer's report, the Court should have examined whether the value of the land as taken by the Valuer's report has some rational and deserves to be accepted being based on some basis or has been fixed only artibrarily. No doubt the Valuer has given the details of the area to show that the potentiality of the land for determining the value of the land at the rate between Rs.600/- to 800/- per square feet. The location of the property is no doubt important but there is no basis how the value of the land of that very area could be between Rs.600/- to Rs.800/- per sq. feet. Besides, after observing that the value of the land of that area could be between Rs.600/- to Rs.800/-, the Valuer has not specified any reason why the rate has been accepted at minimum and not any other rate. The valuer has mentioned in his report that he had made lot of inquiries but he has not given any details thereof as to from whom he made inquiries. He has not mentioned even as what sort of inquiries were made. The valuer has mentioned in his report that he had made lot of inquiries but he has not given any details thereof as to from whom he made inquiries. He has not mentioned even as what sort of inquiries were made. In case the Valuer had made lot of inquiries as stated by him, he ought to have given details thereof indicating the nature of inquiries and the information/statement or other material, if any, received by him to show that there was some basis in taking Rs.600/- to Rs.800/- as the prevalent rate regarding value of the land in absence of the material that the Valuer collected but failed to state or produce either along with his report or in his affidavit, the report on this point ought not to have been accepted." In the judgments (supra) it has been held that in regard to the agricultural land the valuation of the suit can be ascertained at 30 times of the land revenue. (D) Lal Chand vs Union of India and another, passed in Civil Appeal no. 4945 of 2006, decided on 12 August,2009, wherein following observations were made by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 12,13.2,13.3 & 16: "12. The appellant relied upon the notification dated 21.01.1998 issued by the Land Division of Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, notifying the Schedule of Market Rates of land in different parts of Delhi and various outlying areas - showing the minimum rates Rs.400/- per sq. yard for residential and Rs.800/- per sq. yard for non-residential plots. The question is whether the same could be relied upon for determination of market value in regard to land acquisition. When the matter came up before this Court in the earlier round, the counsel for the appellant had conceded that such rates could not form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. In spite of it, the learned counsel for appellant submitted before us that though the said circle rates cannot be the basis for determining the market value, it may be taken not of as one of the relevant pieces of evidence indicative of the market value. There is some confusion as to whether such basic rates / guideline value / minimum registration value rates could form the basis for determining the market value. 13.2. The case of U.P. Jal Nigam arose from Uttar Pradesh. There is some confusion as to whether such basic rates / guideline value / minimum registration value rates could form the basis for determining the market value. 13.2. The case of U.P. Jal Nigam arose from Uttar Pradesh. In that case, the land owner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to U.P. Jal Nigam to pay compensation in regard to lands acquired on the basis of market value assessed by the Collector, Lucknow. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the U.P. Jal Nigam to pay compensation at the rate determined by the Collector, on the basis of the basic valuation circulars issued for purposes of stamp duty. This Court reversed the decision of the High Court following its earlier decision in Jawajee Naganatham and held that the Collector Committed an error in determing the market value on the basis of Basic Value Circulars. Jawajee Naganatham was again followed in Bipin Kumar, which is another case from Uttar Pradesh. 13.3. All the four decisions rejected the value entered in the Basic Valuation Registers, on the ground that they had no statutory basis having regard to the provisions of stamp law applicable in the respective States (Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) and cannot be the basis for determination of market value under Section 23 of the LA Act. 16. It should however be noted that as contrasted from the assessment of market value contained in no statutory Basic Value Registers, the position may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by Expert Committees constituted under the State Stamp Law, by following the detailed procedure laid down under the relevant rules, and are published in the State Gazette. Such state stamp Acts and the Rules there under, provide for scientific and methodical assessment of market value in different areas by Expert Committees. These statutes provide that such committees will be constituted with officers from the Department of Revenue, Public Works, Survey & Settlement, Local Authority and an expert in the field of valuation of properties, with the sub-registrar of the Sub-registration district as the member secretary. They also provide for different methods of valuation for lands, plots, houses and other buildings. These statutes provide that such committees will be constituted with officers from the Department of Revenue, Public Works, Survey & Settlement, Local Authority and an expert in the field of valuation of properties, with the sub-registrar of the Sub-registration district as the member secretary. They also provide for different methods of valuation for lands, plots, houses and other buildings. They require determination of the market value of agricultural lands by classifying them with reference to soil, rate of revenue assessment, value of lands in the vicinity and locality, nature of crop yield for specified number of years, and situation (with reference to roads, markets etc.). The rates assessed by the committee are required to be published inviting objections / suggestions from the members of public. After considering such objections / suggestions, the final rates are published in the Gazette. Such published rates are revised and updated periodically. When the guideline market values, that is, minimum rates for registration of properties, are so evaluated and determined by expert committees as per statutory procedure, there is no reason why such rates should not be a relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value. One of the recognized methods for determination of the market value is with reference to opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted expert committees, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We however hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or road-wise, or area-wise, or village-wise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the Gazette. Be that as it may. We have referred to this aspect only to show that there are different categories of Basic Valuation Registers in different states and what is stated with reference to the stamp law in Andhra Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh, may not apply with reference to other states where state stamp laws have prescribed the procedure for determination of market value, referred to above." 10. It is contended that the circle rate list prepared by the Collector can not depict the correct market value of the property as the circle rate list prepared by the Collector is only in order to charge the stamp duty, which cannot be considered as a correct market value of the property. 11. In nutshell, the submission of learned Senior Counsel is that the land in dispute is revenue payable land therefore, the suits have to be valued on 30 times of the revenue fixed by the State, being stranger to the sale deed in question, the petitioners / plaintiff is obliged to pay 1/5 on the market value as assessed on the 30 times of the revenue. It is submitted that the market value in the sale deed has been mentioned at Rs.11,79,09,000/- and Rs. 7,20,36,000/- respectively, as per the market value assessed in view of the circle rate fixed by the Collector concerned, which cannot be a correct market value as held by the Hon. Apex Court, that the circle rate fixed by the Collector in order to charge the stamp duty cannot be a correct market value of the property Thus, the market value mentioned in the sale deed in order to pay the stamp duty Rs.11,79,09,000/- and Rs.7,20,36,000/- respectively, cannot be said to be a correct market value of the property in dispute. He would submit that the suits are properly valued and sufficient court fee has been paid, as such, the trial court has committed illegality in deciding the issue against the petitioners/plaintiff for the reason that the suits valued by the plaintiff is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the circle rate fixed by the Collector in order to charge the stamp duty has been fixed as per the actual market value of the property situated in the area. It is contended that fixation of circle rate by the Collector is the proper mode for fixation of the market value, unless an aggrieved person challenged that the circle rate fixed by the Collector is not the correct market value of the property. It is contended that the petitioners in an arbitrary and illegal manner had valued the market value of the suit property for payment of court fee and jurisdiction of the court. It is contended that the petitioners in an arbitrary and illegal manner had valued the market value of the suit property for payment of court fee and jurisdiction of the court. He has invited attention of this Court towards paragraph no. 15 of the plaint in O.S. no. 24 of 2013, which is extracted here-in-below: "15. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as under:- (a) Relief "A" is for cancellation of sale deed. The relief "A" is valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.2,00,00,000/- Hence, relief "A" is valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at 30 times of the land revenue, i.e., Rs.3,000/-. The plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed, hence the court fee of 1/5 of Rs.3,000/- is being paid. (b) For Relief "B" - Rs.5,00,000/-, on which the prescribed court fee has been paid. (c) For Relief "C" -Rs.5,00,000/-, on which the prescribed court fee has been paid." 13. Attention of this Court is also drawn towards paragraph no. 15 of the plaint in O.S. no. 25 of 2013, which is extracted here-in-below: "15. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as under:- (a) Relief "A" is for cancellation of sale deed. The relief "A" is valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1,00,00,000/- Hence, relief "A" is valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at 30 times of the land revenue, i.e., Rs.3,000/-. The plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed, hence the court fee of 1/5 of Rs.3,000/- is being paid. (b) For Relief "B" - Rs.5,00,000/-, on which the prescribed court fee has been paid. (c) For Relief "C" -Rs.5,00,000/-, on which the prescribed court fee has been paid." 14. A perusal of the plaint would show that the petitioners / plaintiff have filed aforesaid suits seeking following relief’s: (a) A decree for declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3 (suit no. 24 of 2013); and sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 (suit no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3 (suit no. 24 of 2013); and sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 (suit no. 25 of 2013), both in respect of the property in suit, is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff and the same may be cancelled by a decree of cancellation. (b) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, their agents, employees, representatives etc. for in any way interfering in the property more fully described in the schedule of the plaint, till the disposal of the suit. (c) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 3, his agents, employees, representatives etc. from in any way transferring, alienating or creating 3rd party interest in the property more fully described in the schedule of the plaint till the disposal of the suit. 15. A perusal of the plaint averment of O.S. no. 24 of 2013 and the relief would show that the petitioners / plaintiff himself have valued the relief "A" for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee at Rs.2,00,00,000/-. In the same paragraph it is contended that the suit is valued for Relief "A" for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at 30 time of the land revenue i.e. Rs.3,000/- and plaintiff being not a party to the sale deed the court fee of 1/5 of Rs.3,000/- is being paid. 16. A perusal of the plaint averment of O.S. no. 25 of 2013 and the relief would show that the petitioners / plaintiff himself have valued the relief "A" for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In the same paragraph it is contended that the suit is valued for Relief "A" for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at 30 time of the land revenue i.e. Rs.3,000/- and plaintiff being not a party to the sale deed the court fee of 1/5 of Rs.3,000/- is being paid. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments: (A) Shailendra Bhardwaj and others vs Chandra Pal and another, (2013) 1 SCC 579 . Paragraphs nos. 8 and 9 of said judgment are reproduced below: 8. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments: (A) Shailendra Bhardwaj and others vs Chandra Pal and another, (2013) 1 SCC 579 . Paragraphs nos. 8 and 9 of said judgment are reproduced below: 8. On comparing the abovementioned provisions, it is clear that Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any consequential relief and there is no other provision under the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act makes it clear that this article is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without consequential relief’s and there is no other provision under the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. If there is no other provision under the Court Fees Act in case of a suit involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable a will or sale deed on the question of payment of court fees, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II shall be applicable. But if such relief is covered by any other provisions of the Court Fees Act, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II will not be applicable. On a comparison between the Court Fees Act and the U.P. Amendment Act, it is clear that Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act covers suits for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree for money or an instrument securing money or other property having such value. 9. The suit, in this case, was filed after the death of the testator and, therefore, the suit property covered by the will has also to be valued. Since Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act specifically provides that payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree for money or an instrument, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act would not apply. The U.P. Amendment Act, therefore, is applicable in the present case, despite the fact that no consequential relief has been claimed. Consequently, in terms of Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to be computed according to the value of the subject-matter and the trial court as well as the High Court have correctly held so. The U.P. Amendment Act, therefore, is applicable in the present case, despite the fact that no consequential relief has been claimed. Consequently, in terms of Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to be computed according to the value of the subject-matter and the trial court as well as the High Court have correctly held so. (B) Ram Narain Prasad and another vs Atul Chander Mitra and others, (1994) 4 SCC 349 , wherein in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: 8. In Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar2 this Court noted that the question of court fees had to be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision could not be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on the merits. Though this was stated upon a concession, we have no doubt that the statement lays down the law correctly. For the purposes of valuation of the suit for determination of the court fees payable thereon, what is relevant is the plaint. The averments made and relief sought in the plaint determines the character of the suit for the purposes of the court fees payable thereon. What is stated in the written statement is not material in this regard. This view has also been taken by many High Courts. 9. The plaint in this case sought the relief of eviction of the first respondent from the suit property upon the averments that the appellants were the landlords and the first respondent was their tenant and he was in arrears of rent. The suit could only be valued as an eviction suit, regardless of the fact that the first respondent had denied the appellants' title to the suit property so that this became an issue in the suit. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 19. The suit could only be valued as an eviction suit, regardless of the fact that the first respondent had denied the appellants' title to the suit property so that this became an issue in the suit. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 19. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that to ascertain the market value and for the purpose of payment of court fee and jurisdiction of the court, should be considered from plaint averments alone and what has been stated in the written statement is not relevant is acceptable to the extent that what has been contended in the written statement is not relevant, but the court has to consider while determining the market value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of the court, the court has to consider the averments of plaint, whether the suit has been valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per the relief claimed and in accordance with the provisions contained in the Court fee and Suit Valuation Act. The court is not supposed to accept the plain averment in regard to the payment of court fee and jurisdiction as contended by the plaintiff. On a perusal of the plaint averments and the provisions contained in Section 7(iv-A), this Court is of the view that at one place the plaintiff has valued the suit for cancellation of sale deed and for the purpose of payment of court fee and jurisdiction Rs.2,00,00,000/- and immediately thereafter at thirty times of the revenue payable i.e. Rs. 3,000/- and paid the court fee on 1/5 of the valuation of Rs. 3,000/-. 20. It is nowhere stated in the plaint that how the plaintiff has valued the market value of the property in question at Rs.2,00,00,000/- whereof as per the circle rate fixed by the Collector, the market value of the property in dispute is Rs.11,00,00,000/-. The stamp duty has been paid on an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- sale consideration but in view of the provisions contained in Section 7(iv-A) of the Act the sale consideration is not the relevant factor for the purpose of payment of court fee and jurisdiction of the court. It is only the market value of the suit property the court fee is to be paid and jurisdiction of the court be fixed. It is only the market value of the suit property the court fee is to be paid and jurisdiction of the court be fixed. The plaintiff cannot take two contradictory market value in his plaint, as in one place he has fixed the market value of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and the jurisdiction of hearing the suit for valuation of Rs.1,00,000/- vests in Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), whereof a suit valued for an amount of Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of payment of court fee and jurisdiction, the jurisdiction to try the suit of the valuation of Rs.3,000/- vests in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.). 21. Section 15 the Code of Civil Procedure provides that every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Section 15 of CPC is quoted hereunder: "15. Court in which suits to be instituted. -Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it." 22. Assuming that the market value of the suit property is Rs.3,000/-, as per the averment of the plaint, then the suits could not have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.). If it is a valuation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as per the plaint averment for the purpose of payment of court fee and jurisdiction and the suits have been instituted in the competent court of jurisdiction, then there is no basis of it that the market value of the suit is Rs.2,00,00,000/-. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that circle rate is not the correct mode to ascertain the market value has some force, but it is not the absolute proposition. In some cases, the market value may be higher or lower then the circle rate but to ascertain the market value, the party assailing the market value as fixed in the circle rate has to prove that the circle rate has not been fixed on the real market value. Unless otherwise market value is proved on higher or lower side, the market value assessed on the basis of circle rate cannot be said improper / incorrect market value. 23. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court having considered the market value as mentioned in the sale deed has found the correct market value of the suit property and held that the suits have not been valued properly. 23. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court having considered the market value as mentioned in the sale deed has found the correct market value of the suit property and held that the suits have not been valued properly. Thus, I am of the considered view that since no other market value has been proved by the petitioners / plaintiff that the settled revenue of the land is Rs.3,000/- and in absence of any evidence in this regard, the trial court has rightly considered the market value of the property in dispute in accordance with the market value fixed by the Collector in order to charge the stamp duty, which is the correct market value. 24. So far the findings recorded by the trial court that the petitioners / plaintiff is required to pay the ad voleram court fee on the market value is incorrect in view of the provisions contained in Sub Section (2) of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fee Act. Since the petitioners / plaintiff or its predecessor-ininterest is not the party to the instrument, therefore, the petitioners / plaintiff is obliged to pay 1/5 of the value of the subject matter as mentioned in the instrument involved in the suit. 25. In view of the findings recorded above, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly held that O.S. no. 24 of 2013 and O.S. 25 of 2015 have been undervalued and court fee paid is insufficient and in fixation of market value as mentioned in the sale deed Rs.11,79,09,000/- (in O.S. no. 24 of 2013) and Rs. 7,20,36,000/- (in O.S. no. 25 of 2013) is correct, whereof the finding in regard to the payment of ad voleram court free are illegal and is liable to set aside. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the trial court on issue nos. 8 and 9 are modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall value the suit no. 24 of 2013 at the rate of Rs.11,79,09,000- and O.S. no. 25 of 2013 at the rate of Rs.7,20,36,000/- respectively, and shall pay the court fee on 1/5 of the aforesaid value thereon. So far Relief 'B' and 'C' are concerned, the petitioners have paid the fixed court fee. 24 of 2013 at the rate of Rs.11,79,09,000- and O.S. no. 25 of 2013 at the rate of Rs.7,20,36,000/- respectively, and shall pay the court fee on 1/5 of the aforesaid value thereon. So far Relief 'B' and 'C' are concerned, the petitioners have paid the fixed court fee. The petitioners shall pay the remaining court fee within two months from today, on payment of remaining court fee the trial court shall proceed to decide both the suits in accordance with law. 26. The impugned order is modified and both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.