RAM PRAVESH SINGH Vs. MANESHWARI PRASAD NARAIN DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the defendant arises out of a valuation matter in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party for a declaration that certain sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act is void and not binding on him. The suit has been valued at Rs. 550, being the sale price. This valuation was challenged by the petitioner and though he himself in his written statement did not give his own value, but relied on the statement of the plaintiff himself in a previous application made by him for stay or delivery of possession. In that application the value of the property sold was given at Rs. 60,000. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the value of the property should not have been less than the above amount for the purpose of jurisdiction. The Court below rejected that contention and hence this application has been presented in this Court.

(2.) In this case it was conceded on behalf of the petitioner that no ad valorem Court-fee was payable and that the Court-fee paid was sufficient. The Court below, therefore, held that it was a pure declaratory suit and the Court-fee paid for declaration under Schedule 2. Article 17(iii) of the Court Fees Act was sufficient. No objection has been raised in this regard in the revisional application filed in this Court. The only point that has been taken in the petition of revision is about the valuation. It is contended that the valuation of the property, which had been sold in a certificate sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The only point, therefore, that has to be determined in the present application is as to what should be the valuation, for the purpose of jurisdiction, in pure declaratory suit Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act provides for rules to be made by the Provincial Government for determining the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paras, (v) and (vi) and para, (x), Clause (d). Section 4 says that where a suit mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, para. (iv) or Schedule II, Article 17, relates to land or an interest in land of which the value has been determined by rules under the last foregoing section, the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules. Unfortunately no rule has been framed by the State Government in this regard. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act lays down that where in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paras. (v), (vi) and (ix) and para (x), Clause (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. Since, however, in the present case Court-fee is not payable ad valorem, this section has no application. Section 9 provides for making of rules by the High Court with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government for determining the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in suits other than suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870, in Section 7, paras, (v) and (vi) and para. (x), Clause (d). Unfortunately the High Court also has not made any rule under this section. There is no other provision in the Suits Valuation Act for determining the valuation of a pure declaratory suit. That being the position, the valuation in such a suit may have to be determined under the general principle of law. In Mohini Mohan Misser v. Gour Chandra Rai, 5 Pat LJ 397: (AIR 1921 Pat 32) (A), a suit was brought for a declaration of a fishery right. It was held in that case that the subject-matter of the declaration being the fishery right, the value of that fishery right would be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction. Applying the principle of that case to the facts of the present case, it appears that the subject-matter of the declaration is the certificate sale held under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, which is sought to be declared to be void. The value of the certificate sale will, therefore, be the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. The question is what should be the value of sale. Obviously it cannot be the value of the land which has been sold. In my opinion its value will be the price for which it was held. That being the position, the value fixed in the present case at Rs. 550, as being the price of the certificate sale is the correct value for the purpose of jurisdiction.

(3.) The result, therefore, is that this application fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 32.