AMAL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. BHAGWAN SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule along with other Rules were heard together as the same question of law were involved. The question posed in these Rules is whether the suit was properly valued. The suit was brought by the plaintiff. The present rule is at the instance of the defendant arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property being 8/2, Plan avenue, Calcutta and for perpetual injunction. The suit was valued at Rs. 100/ -. In the plaint the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff had acquired title in the suit property by adverse possession. The right, title and possession of the owner was extinguished and other person excepting the plaintiff had any right, title and interest when they are in exclusive possession in the suit property since 1959. But as the defendants are threatening the plaintiff from possessing the suit property in execution of a decree being title Execution Case No. 5 of 1955 this suit was brought and the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 100/- for declaration and injunction.

(2.) MR. Siddhartha Sankar Roy appearing for the petitioners contended that the suit was under-valued inasmuch as, one katha of land in the suit property cannot be less than Rs. 10/- thousand as held by this court in an earlier suit and which was affirmed also in appeal from the judgment of a single Judge by the Division Bench. Mr. Roy contended that court fee should have been on the basis of Section 7 sub-section 4) (B) of the Court Fees Act, or in other words, the suit should be valued at the market value of the property for which declaration is prayed for. Mr. Dipankar gupta, following Mr. Roy contended that assuming the valuation of the suit should not be according to the subject matter but even if it is a case of valuing relief it may provide objective standard which is available so as to value the relief claimed. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in 82 cwn, 1115, Tarai Tea Co. v. Life Insurance corpn. AIR 1953 Cal. , 755 Chhatulal v. Fanchanan and AIR 1967 Cal. , 423. Jitendra v. Baduria Municipality. Mr. Bankim dutt, appearing for one of the opposite parties in one of these Rules contended that as the opposite parties are in possession of the suit premises, the relief claimed according to him has been valued properly, nr. Sankar Ghose appearing for the opposite parties in C. R. No. 4461 of 1979 contended that if the possession is claimed the objective standard will be the market value. out when the person is in possession no objective standard is necessary and declaration of title and injunction as claimed is incapable of valuation. The plaintiff may value his relief according to subjective manner, He relied upon AIR 1967 Cal. 423, air 1950 Cal. , 85 and AIR 1958 SC, 246, air 1971 SC, 87. Mr. Ranadev Chowdhury appearing for another set of the Rules contended that there was no prayer far possession and the possession being with the plaintiff, the suit has been properly valued. He relied upon a decision reported in 70 CWN 857.

(3.) CONSIDERING all these cases together i do not think that there can be any dispute on the question of law. If no objective standard of valuation is available the plaintiff can put his own valuation in respect of the relief he claimed in the suit. The said relief is personal to him and is hot related to the subject-matter of the suit, in the case reported m A I. R. 1971 S. C, 87 (State of u. P. v. Ramknshan) it has been held toy the Supreme Court that a decree for declaration of title to money or other property is not a decree for money or Other property. "decree for money or other property'' means only a decree for recovery of money or other property it does not include a decree concerning title to money or other property. A suit for a mere declaration that the plaintiff is a owner of certain properties does not fall under section 7 (iv-A) of the Act. In a case reported in A. I. R. 1958 S. C, 246 (Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan chettiar) it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the scheme laid down for the computation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub-sections of section 7 is considered, it would be clear that, in respect of suits falling under sub-section (iv), a departure Has been made and liberty has been given to, the plaintiff to value :his, claim for the purposes of court-fees. The, theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness the effect of the provisions of section 8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon "the value as determinable for computation of court-fees. The computation of court-fees in suits falling under section 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim, Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court is stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the am bunt at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court-fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa. In a case reported in A. I. R. 1953 Cal. 755 (Chhatu Lai v. Panchnan)it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that in a suit, by the plaintiff in possession with other co-sharers for a declaration that the sale; deed executed by other co-sharer is void and for permanent injunction, the suit is one for declaration with consequential relief. There being no objective standard for valuing relief plaintiff can put his own valuation. In a case reported in a. I. R. 1967 Cal. 423 " (Jitendra Nath v. Baduria Municipality) it has been held by this Court that while determining the court-fees payable, one must not equate the subject-matter of the suit with subject-matter in dispute. The value of the relief claimed cannot be equated with the value of the subject-matter itself. The learned single Judge further held that the valuation given by the plaintiff, though arbitrary cannot be varied under section 8-C of the Act by the Court in the absence of a standard sanctioned by law. In a case reported in A. 1. R. 1939 Cal. 278 (Bagaal Nandu v. Shrish Chandra) it has been held by the Division Bench of this court that as no objective standard of valuation was available in so far as the plaintiff's claim was concerned he was entitled to put his own valuation. In the case reported in 70 C. W. N. 857 (Amritatal Chatterjee v. H. Chatterjee)it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that the valuation of the belief sought, is not the same thing as valuation of the property itself or the subject-matter of the suit. The value of the relief is now the value of the suit. In a case reported in 82 C. W. N. , 1115 (Tarai Tea Co. v. L. 1. C. of India) it has been held by the Division Bench of this court that in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree or order if the Court is of the opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may refuse the valuation and for the purpose of determining the correct valuation, the Court may hold such enquiry as it may think fit. The plaintiff has stated the amount at which he values the relief he claims, the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the plain-' tiff's valuation unless the valuation is illegal, palpably absurd, manifestly illogical or arithmetically wrong.