RANJANA ARORA Vs. SATISH KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the sister of the defendants and the parties are the legal heirs of late Sh. Madan Lal Arora. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition of immovable properties allegedly, belonging to Sh. Madan Lal Arora & Co. It is stated in the plaint that the immovable properties mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint were acquired by defendants with the funds of the firm M/s. Madan Lal & Co. and the plaintiff claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Madan Lal Arora, claims her share in the properties. In paragraph No. 10 of the plaint the plaintiff has submitted that on proper rendition of accounts of the firm and other assets, the plaintiff estimates that he would be entitled to a sum not less than Rs. 10 lacs and on partition of properties, it is mentioned in the plaint, her share will be of the value of about Rs, 30 lacs. The plaintiff, therefore has valued the suit for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 40 lacs and has fixed a tentative Court fee of Rs. 40.00 on the plaint.

(2.) After summon has been issued to the defendant they filed an application under Order 7, Rule II of Civil Procedure Code stating that the plaintiff herself having admitted that the defendants were in exclusive possession of the property, she in terms of the provisions contained in Section 7(iv)(b) and Article 17(6) of Schedule-11 of the Court Fee Act, was liable to pay advolerem Court fee on the value fixed for purpose of jurisdiction in the plaint. According to them the plaint, is, therefore, liable to be rejected as the plaintiff has not affixed the Court fees in accordance with the said provisions of law.

(3.) 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not denied by the plaintiff that she is not in possession of any part of the property. However, the plaintiff's submission is that once the plaintiff has fixed a value for purpose of Court fees, the Court cannot interfere in the same. In support of his submission Mr. Chaudhary has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Shiela Devi & Ors. v. Sh. Kishori Lal Kalra & Ors., ILR 1974 (II) Delhi 491, to contend that the Court cannot interfere in the plaintiffs valuing the relief in the suit and according to Mr. Chaudhary, therefore, if the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 40 lacs and has fixed the tentative Court fees of Rs. 40.00 this Court should not interfere with the same. He has also drawn my attention to page 507 of the judgment wherein the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Pr. Ar. Rm. Ramanbhan, AIR 1958 SC 245, has been relied upon by this Court.