SADASIVAN Vs. CHEMPAKAKUTTY BHARATY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of certain properties situated in the Varanattukara pakathi in Neyyattinkara Taluk and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment thereof. THEy valued their jenmom right at Rs. 300/-and the annual income of the properties at Rs. 30/- per year. For the purpose of court fee the valuation was put at Rs. 300/- under S. 25 (4) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 10 of 1960. Objection was raised regarding the value for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. A commission was taken. THE Commissioner reported that the market value of the suit properties will be about Rs. 8004. 90. An issue was raised regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. THE Court, after considering the Commissioner's report, held that the market value of the property was a little over Rs. 7,000/ -. and, therefore, it was not maintainable before the Munsiff. It is this order that is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, does not contend that the value fixed by the Commissioner is not acceptable. THE argument is that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be taken at one-half of the market value. Reference is made to S. 25 (b) of the Court Fees Act. THEreunder, in a suit for a declaratory decree where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, court fee should be computed at one-half of the market value of the property or at Rs. 300/-, whichever is higher. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, if the market value of the property is to be fixed at the figure mentioned by the Commissioner, the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee being one-half the market value, is less than Rs. 5000/-, and the suit is maintainable in the Munsiff's Court. THE argument is that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the same as the value for the purpose of court fee, irrespective of the market value. THErefore, even assuming that the market value is something more than Rs. 5,000/-, one-half of that value alone need be taken for the purpose of arriving at the valuation of the suit.

(3.) THOUGH a suit may involve immovable property, the subject matter of the suit need not in all cases be the whole property, but particular rights therein. It is now fairly established that for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction it is the subject matter of the suit that should be taken into account. There may be instances where the value of the subject matter of the suit and the value of the property involved are one and the same. In such cases the valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction unless otherwise provided would be the value of the property. There are cases where specific provision is made in the Act regarding the value of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction. There are other cases where there is no specific provision in the Code regarding the mode of valuation. In such cases, in view of S. 53 (1), the value for the purpose of computing court fee and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction should be one and the same. There are yet other cases where irrespective of the value of the subject matter a fixed court fee is fixed under the Act. A suit for partition may fall under this category. In such cases, under S. 53 (2), the value for the purpose of jurisdiction should ordinarily be the market value of the property. In cases where it is not possible to estimate the market value at a money value the plaintiff is given the liberty to state the money value of the relief in the plaint, and court fee should be paid on such money value.