SUNITA KANSAL Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 19203/2012 (u/O. 7 Rule 11 CPC).

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking possession of three rooms, one store, one kitchen, bathroom, latrine at ground floor and entire first floor of property bearing No. T -82, Vishnu Garden, Khayala, Delhi -110018. The defendant is the real brother of the husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is stated to have purchased the suit property for valuable consideration from Smt. Sulochna through defendant. The defendant was the power of attorney holder for the suit property and is stated to have executed relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff. The present application is filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. It is stated that for the purpose of jurisdiction, Court fee and relief the suit at the first instance was valued at Rs. 23,65,280/ - and Court Fee was affixed accordingly. Subsequently the plaint has been amended. It is stated that earlier the plaintiff had filed the suit for possession of one room with store on ground floor of the suit property and plaintiff had affixed the Court Fee of Rs. 25,500/ -. Thereafter and application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking permission for amendment of the plaint and that application was allowed on 17.7.2012. The amendment was carried out in the plaint. In the amended plaint the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the suit property. It is stated that the value of the suit property of which possession is sought by plaintiff is approximately Rs. 2 crores. As plaintiff has failed to furnish the additional court fees the present application is filed for rejection of the plaint.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant in his rejoinder had no reply to the explanation given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff for valuation of the suit property. In my view the explanation given by the plaintiff in his reply is a complete justification for the valuation of the suit property. As stated in the plaint under Section 7(v)(e) of the Court Fee Act where subject matter is a house or garden in Suit for possession, valuation is done according to the value of the suit property, which is the market value. The plaintiff as given in his reply has valued the property at the market value. For suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, in terms of Entry 2 of Schedule I of Court Fees Act, Court Fees is fixed at 50%. Hence, the valuation of the plaintiff as stated is correct. The present application is without merits and is dismissed.