FALI PHIROJSHAH CONTRACTOR Vs. PHIROJSHAH PESTONJI CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit by the opponent for a declaration that Government Securities worth Rs. 2 0 0 and odd standing in the joint names of the opponent and the petitioner were of his sole ownership and that he alone had a right to operate the account of the securities and for a consequential injunction the relief sought was valued at Rs. 99.00. The value for purposes of jurisdiction was also taken as Rs. 99/and the suit was filed in the Court of the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda. An objection was taken on the ground of jurisdiction and it was contended that the value for the purposes of jurisdiction should be Rs 2 0 0 and odd and that the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda had no jurisdiction.

(2.) The learned 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda observed that the suit admittedly fell under sec. 7 (iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act of 1870 He also observed that the Court has got powers to inquire into the matter and revise the valuation under sec. 8A of the Bombay Court fees Act of 1954 and he discussed various authorities namely Chhotalal v. Laxmidas A.I.R. 1959 Bombay 517 Bhikhandas v. Motilal A.I.R. 1958 Bom. 307 Amirchand v. Kakimali A.I.R. 1924 Lahore 364 and Rama Kalinga v. Balappa Kalinga A.I.R. 1942 Bombay 203 He observed that in the light of the above authorities the correct position of law is that in a suit falling under sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act it is the value of the relief claimed as put by the plaintiff that governs the jurisdiction as the value for the purposes of court-fees placed by the plaintiff is the same under sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. He conceded that under sec. 8A of the Bombay Court-fees Act of 1954 the Court can revise the valuation made if it felt that the suit was wrongly valued. He also observed as follows:- The inquiry into the valuation contemplated by sec. 8A is to be made where there is a standard by reference to which the valuation of the relief claimed could be arrived at and if by reference to that standard the valuation put by the plaintiff is found to be erroneous the Court can revise it. However there is no such objective standard to revise the value put by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction as in the present suit where the right claimed by the plaintiff is an abstract right. That is therefore but natural that the plaintiff would put a notional value for the relief claimed by him as it would not be possible to evaluate the relief claimed by him at any particular figure.

(3.) Section 8A of the Court Fees Act no doubt restricts the plaintiff in valuing the relief to some extent but this restriction does not in any way prevent the plaintiff from doing so where the relief claimed by him is an abstract right and the valuation of which would vary according to individual views.