K S PERUMAL MUDALIAR Vs. K ONDIPILIYA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant 1 is the petitioner herein. The question involved in this revision is one under the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Sub-Court, Madura, for a mandatory injunction for the demolition of some structures made by the petitioner in a lane claimed to be common between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff valued the relief under Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees Act at Rs. 3100 The defendant has taken objection to this valuation and contends that this has been deliberately overvalued for the purpose of filing this suit in the Sub-Court. The Subordinate Judge returned the plaint holding that the right of the plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(d) to value his claim at his discretion has been taken away by the notification issued by this High Court under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, and relies for this purpose on the judgment of Krishnaswami Iyengar J., In re Ghosh Beevi, 1944.1 M. L. J. 340 : (A. I. R. (31) 1944 Mad. 406). He further held that the proper method of computation would be to assess the relief in the cost of the removal of the structures which is stated in the plaint itself to be Rs. 100. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the District Court in C. M. A. No. 28 of 1947. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and directed him to take the suit on his file and dispose it of according to law. This revision is now against the order of the District Judge in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) That the suit falls under Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees Act, is not disputed by the petitioner and the respondent plaintiff has valued it under Section 7(iv)(d). Under Section 7(iv)(c) and (d) court-fee is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. Clause (c) was amended in 1922 by Madras Act V [5] of 1922 and under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, this High Court has issued a notification which is as follows :

(3.) This notification applies for the class of suits which fall under Section 7(iv)(d). That this applies to this case also is not in dispute. Before the amendment to clause (c) and the notification under clause (d), it has been held by our Court in Guruvajamma v. Venkatakrishnama Chetti, 24 Mad. 34 that the Court has no power to increase the value given by the plaintiff. In Chinnammal v. Madarsa Rowther, 27 Mad. 480 also it was held that the Court bas no jurisdiction to decline to accept the valuation given by the plaintiff and it could not revise the valuation. These two decisions came up for consideration in Ramiah v. Ramasami, 24 M. L. J. 233 : (18 I. C. 363 F. B.), a Full Bench decision of this Court. The question referred there was whether a valuation made by a plaintiff of the relief sought by him in a suit for partition of properties which he claimed to be in joint possession along with his coparceners may be rejected by the Court if it is proved not to be bona fide but an arbitrary valuation. There they state that the settled practice of this Court would appear to be in accordance with the decisions in Guruvajamma v. Venkatakrishna Chetti, 24 Mad. 34 and Chinnammal v. Madarsa Rowther, 27 Mad, 480. They were not prepared to differ from those decisions. It is clear from the decision of the Pall Bench that even though the valuation may not be bona fide and may be arbitrary, the Court had no power to interfere with the discretion given to the plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(o) and (d). As stated already, under Section 7(iv)(c) an amendment was introduced by Madras Act v [5] of 1922 by introducing a proviso which stated that: