BHUPAT SINGHA Vs. JNANENDRA KUMAR CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapore, praying for (a) a declaration that they had an occupancy right in the disputed land on the strength of a settlement and also on the ground of possession for more than twelve years; and (b) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession on the strength of a decree which had been obtained by them, In para. 14 of the plaint the plaintiffs allege that the present market value of the properties in dispute is Rs. 5500/- and the net profits from the properties amount to Rs. 175 and fifteen times the net profits will be equivalent to Rs. 2625/-. The aforesaid amounts were mentioned for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court, but the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed lands and that defendants 1 and 2 were merely threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, valued the relief for an injunction against defendants 1 and 2 at Rs. 100/- and paid court lees upon that amount. In the trial Court an issue was raised as to whether the plaint had been sufficiently stamped. At the trial however, this issue was not pressed and it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. As a result of the trial, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and against that decree the plaintiffs have brought this appeal. The memorandum of appeal, which has been presented to this Court, has been valued by the plaintiffs at Rs. 5500/- presumably on the basis of the valuation which was given by the plaintiffs in para. 14 of the plaint as to the market value of the properties in dispute. The court-fees, however, were paid by the plaintiffs on the valuation of Rs. 100/-. The Stamp Reporter took an objection to the manner in which the plaintiffs have put two valuations for jurisdiction and for court-fees. It was pointed out that under Section 8, Suits Valuation Act the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction must follow and be the same as the valuation for the purpose of court-fees, and that, at any rate, there must be a single valuation both for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of court-fees.

(2.) The Stamp Reporter has further suggested that in this case as the over-valuation made by the plaintiffs has resulted in the suit being tried by a Subordinate Judge, the plaintiffs must be directed to amend the valuation to a figure which is -above the maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. The matter was then considered by the Taxing Officer and upon a review of the authorities on the point, the Taxing Officer came to the conclusion that in view of the judg ment of Sir Asutosh Mookerjee in the case of --'Salendra Nath Mitra v. Ram Chandra Pal', AIR 1921 Cal 84 (A), there was some difficulty in asking the plaintiffs to value the appeal or the plaint at a figure higher than Rs. 100/- and as the question is a question of general importance, he placed the matter before the learned Chief Justice fov being considered by a Judge.

(3.) Mr. Panda appearing in support of the plaintiffs-appellants has conceded that the case comes under Section 7(iv) but he contends that it comes under Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees Act. On behalf of the State, tiie learned Senior Government Pleader has contended that the case really comes under Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act; On a consideration of the prayers made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, it seems to me that the prayer for injunction is really a consequential relief which flows from or is ancillary to the prayer for declaration made by the plaintiffs in their plaint. I therefore hold that the present case comes under Section 7(iv)(c) but the question whether the case comes under Clause (c) or Clause (d) is of no practical importance in this case, because in either case the plaintiffs will have a right to value their own relief subject, of course, to the provisions of Section 8C, Court-fees Act under which the Court is given the power to revise the valuation put by the plaintiff, if it appears to the Court to be grossly inadequate. In view of the Full-Bench decision of this Court however in the case of -- 'Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and Supply Society, Ltd. v. Mafizuddin Ahmad', AIR 1934 Cal 448 (FB) (B), and the decision of this Court in the case if --'Saroje Mohan Chatterjee v. Jiban Mull Babu', it cannot now be disputed that having regard to the fact that according to the plaintiffs', allegations they are in possession of the land in dispute, the valuation given by the plaintiffs for the relief asked for by them cannot be revised by the Court in the absence of rules framed for that purpose. The valuation of the relief for injunction which has been given by the plaintiffs in their plaint cannot, therefore, be revised or altered by this Court. Since however the suit comes under Section 7, para, (iv) it is governed by Section 8, Suits Valuation Act which requires that in a suit of this description 'the value as determinable for the computation of court-tees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same'. It has been established by a series of decisions that this provision of the Suits Valuation Act means that there must, be a single valuation both for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of court-fees and further that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be determined by the valuation for the purpose of court-fees, but not vice versa. (Vide AIR 1921 Cal 84 (A) and -- 'In the matter of Kalipada Mukharji', AIR 1930 Cal 686 (D)). If that be so, the valuation of the present suit and the present appeal must be Rs. 100/-but in that case neither the Subordinate Judge would have jurisdiction to try the suit, nor will this Court have the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, because I am informed that the Munsif of Jhargram, where the disputed properties are situate, has pecuniary jurisdiction up to the value of Rs. 3,500/-. If the suit had been properly valued by the plaintiffs in the trial Court, the Munsif of Jhargram would have been competent to try the suit and the appeal to this Court would be incompetent, because the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is below the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. So tar as the decision of the Subordinate Judge is concerned, the plaintiffs are perhaps protected by the provision of Section 11, Suits Valuation Act which provides that