MUSTAFA SHAH Vs. DHANU SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure obtained by the plaintiff, the valuation of whose suit for a declaration of his and a proforma defendant's title to two bata dags admeasuring between themselves 2. 98 acres, say 9 bighas, a little more or a little less, and for a permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants from holding the annual 'urush Mela' thereon, has been enhanced by the learned Munsif, Asansol, from rs. 199 to Rs 30,000.

(2.) THE very first thing to do in a problem of this type is to classify the suit. That the suit out of which this rule arises comes under section 7 (iv), clause (c), of the Court Fees Act, 7 of 1870, is patent. Indeed, on that we all agree - Mr. Dutta, who appears for the petitioner, Mr. Das, who appears for the opposite party, and I, Once the classification is so, the court-fee payable, will be according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. Thus, the standard to go by is the value of the relief sought, not the value of the subject-matter of the suit as in s. 7 (v) ibid. In other words, the subject-matter of the suit is not the subjeet-matter in suit. That, indeed, is trite, but it had to be emphasized by a Bench decision of this Court: (1) Biraja charan Nanda v. Sailaja Charan Nanda, (1938) 42 C. W. N, 667.

(3.) IN the case in hand, the relief sought has been valued in the plaint at Rs. 199. No doubt, it is subject to an inquiry by the court under section 8c ibid, for determining the correct valuation. Mr. Das emphasizes the existence of such a provision as section 8c. To my thinking, however, section 8c appears to be nothing like so germane as has been imagined. Because, section BC or no section 8c, the court has always the power to revive the valuation put in by the suing party. So section 8c is there ex abundanti cautela as pointed out by a recent Bench decision of this Court : (2) Amritalal chatterjee v. Hiralal Chatterjee, (1966)70 C. W. N. 857.