SHARMISTHA SINHA Vs. RAM CHANDRA SAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule has been obtained by the defendant, Miss Sharmistha Sinha, against an order of the Additional Munsif, Patna, dated 13-1-1954, holding that the valuation of the suit has been correctly stated by the plaintiff, to be Rs. 826,

(2.) The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the defendant was in possession as a trespasser of two rooms and a verandah. The case of the plaintiff was that the rooms and the verandah formed portion of the house occupied by the plaintiff and, in 1949, the plaintiff had brought a case before the House Controller, Patna, for eviction of Mosammat Bindhyachal Kuer, an elder sister of the plaintiff. The House Controller ordered the eviction of Mosammat Bindhyachal Kuer by his order dated 10-12-1949. The plaintiff alleged that, in January 1950, Miss Sinha, the defendant, bad taken the portion of the house in dispute on a monthly rental of Rs. 25. In July 1950, the plaintiff had applied to the House Controller for the eviction of the defendant on the ground that there was non-payment of rent. The application was allowed by the House Controller, but, on appeal, the Collector of Patna held that there was no sufficient evidence to show that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and set aside the order of eviction passed by the House Controller. The Commissioner upheld the order of the Collector of Patna in revision, holding that.it had nut been proved, that there was relationship ot landlord and tenant between the panics. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of possession of the two rooms and the verandah and also for mesne profits from the defendant. The learned Munsif held that the suit tell within the ambit of Section 7(v), Court-Fees Act and, relying on the authority of a Division Bench of this Court in -- 'Mt. Barkatunnisa Begum v. Mt. Kaniza Fatma', AIR 1927 Pat 140 (A), held that the suit had been properly valued by the plaintiff at the sum of Rs. 820 and that he had jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.

(3.) In support of this rule, Dr. Sultan Ahraad submitted, in the first place, that the test for the purpose of court-fee and also for valuation under Section 7(v) was the market value of the property over which the plaintiff sought to recover possession. It was argued that the plaintiff had undervalued the property and that the oral evidence of the defendant showed that the correct valuation of the property was Rs. 10,000 and, therefore, the learned Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Counsel also pointed out that the plaintiff himself had claimed Rs. 25.00 per month as damages by reason of occupation. The point taken was that the valuation of the plaintiff was an arbitrary and capricious valuation. Counsel also made the submission that the decision of the Division Bench, in AIR 1927 Pat 140 (A) is not correct, that it has not met with the approval of the other High Courts and required reconsideration by a larger Bench. In our opinion, the case of the plaintiff falls within the ambit of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act and not under Section 7(v), and, in this view of the matter, it is not necessary, in our opinion, to consider whether the decision of the Division Bench in 'AIR 1927 Pat 140 (A)' is correct or whether it requires to be reconsidered by a larger Bench. It is true that the plaintiff has, in the reliefs, sought for a decree for recovery of possession, of the two rooms and the verandah, but the nature of the suit should be determined not in accordance with the form in which the plaintiff has framed his reliefs but on the proper interpretation of all the allegations made in the plaint. We find that the plaintiff, has, in substance, sought for declaration of title as regards the two rooms and the verandah and also for the consequential relief of possession of that portion of the house from the defendant. It that is the right interpretation to be placed on the plaint, it follows that the suit falls within the ambit of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and the court fee payable by the plaintiff must be computed, not upon the market value of the property in dispute, but according to the valuation of the reliefs as put by the plaintiff. It is, however, well-settled that, even in a case falling under Section 7(iv)(e), Court Fees Act, the Court is empowered under the law to revise the valuation, if, in its opinion, the valuation put by the plaintiff is arbitrary and capricious. (See, for example, the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in -- 'Salahuddin Hyder Khan v. Dhauoo Lal', AIR 1945 Pat 421 (Bj acd -- 'Mt. Rupia v. Bhatu Mahton', AIR 1944 Pat 17 (FBJ (C).) The point taken by Dr. ^Sultan Ahmad is that the valuation put by the plaintiff in this case is capricious since the plaintiff has claimed a monthly rental of Rs. 25 before the House Controller for the portion of the house occupied by the defendant. The plaintiff has valued the property in suit at Rs. 100, mesne profits till the date of suit at Rs. 725 and future mesne profits at Re. 1.00, the total valuation being Rs. 826. In our opinion, Dr. Sultan Ahmad is right in contending that the valuation put by the plaintiff is arbitrary and capricious. The order of the learned Munsif is also defective since he has not taken into account the claim of the plaintiff to a rental of Rs. 25.00 which is said to be payable by the defendant. We were also informed, during the argument, by the learned counsel for the opposite party that a sale deed was produced on behalf of the plaintiff to show that the entire house was purchased for Rs. 800. There is no mention of this document in the order of the Munsif which is now being challenged. The learned Munsif has also not fully considered the oral evidence given by the defendant on the question of valuation.