Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 644 (MP)

Ramsevak Sahu v. Mathura Prasad Sahu

2025-10-28

DEEPAK KHOT

body2025
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 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 partition, the court fees has been paid 20 times the land revenue which is payable on the revenue land has been affixed on the plaint, as stated in para 11 of the plaint. Objection in regard to less valuation for the relief of partition is also not material to the extent that because on the land revenue 20 times court fees has been stated to be paid. Objection in regard to less valuation for the relief of partition is also not material to the extent that because on the land revenue 20 times court fees has been stated to be paid. The legislature has carved out aexceptional entry for the purpose of agricultural land in the Act of 1870 and, accordingly, if the subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land, then the court fees is to be paid in accordance with section 7(v) of the Act of 1870, therefore, all other entries are not attracted for the purpose of agriculture land. Section 7 (v) of the Act of 1870 is reproduced hereinbelow :- 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.-The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :- for possession of land, houses and gardens.-(v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens- according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be where the subject-matter is land, and- (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently settled-ten times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently-five times the revenue so payable; (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint fifteen times such net profits; but where no such net profits have arisen there from-the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as abovementioned-the market-value of the land; 9. It is also trite law that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and has to value the suit with proper valuation. The valuation should not be irrational or unreasonable. The question of valuation from the face value of the plaint cannot be decided if the objection has been raised in regard to less valuation by the defendant. To decide such issue, the court has to frame an issue on the point of less valuation and payment of less court fees. On the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties, the court decides such an issue and after such analysis of the material available on record, if the court finds that the valuation is not correct as per the Suits Valuation Act, then the Court may direct the plaintiff to make proper valuation and if it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction, may return the plaint. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act is reproduced hereinbelow :- 8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional 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 value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. 10. Thus, at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court has to only see from the plaint averment the suit is not valued improperly or on a less valuation. This Court finds that the plaint averments contains the valuation of the suit and the payment of court fees according to the entry mentioned in the Act of 1870. Thus, the reasoning assigned by the court below in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is proper and cannot be said to be perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. The court below hasbestowed its consideration over the pleadings and accordingly decided the application. The learned court below in the impugned order has applied the principle of law laid down by this Court and held that the land being agricultural land, the suit is valued at proper valuation and the court fees has also been paid according to the Act of 1870 as per the rate prescribed for the agricultural land on the land revenue as per the Act of 1870. The court has found that for injunction separate valuation has been done as it is not consequential to the declaration and the same for partition proper valuation has been done and according to the land revenue the court fees has been affixed. The relief of partition and injunction is not consequential to the sale deed, therefore, it has been observed that the valuation has been done properly. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.K.Ghosh Vs. Dhruv Kumar Haryani & Anr., 2011 (4) MPLJ 493 has held that a suit for declaration with a consequential relief for injunction requires proper valuation and payment of ad valorem court fees as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act and Suits Valuation Act. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Badrilal Bholaram Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1964 AIR (MP) 9 has held that in suits for declaration with consequential relief, the plaintiff has the liberty to value the relief claimed for purposes of court-fee, but the court has the power to correct an undervaluation if it is unreasonable or arbitrary. 13. On the basis of aforesaid enunciation of law and facts of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned court below has not committed any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error which can call for an interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction envisaged under section 115 of the CPC. Thus, the revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the question of less valuation and court fees in the written statement and by adducing evidence and the trial court is expected to decide such objection in accordance with law without getting influenced by the impugned order and the order passed by this Court.