SK.KAIYUM @ MD.KAIYUM Vs. MD.DIL NAWAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha, for the petitioners and Mr. Shobha Nath Jha, for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. Earlier notices were issued to the opposite parties to show cause why this revision should not be allowed or disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In response thereof only opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have appeared. Now I proceed to dispose of this matter.

(2.) THE plaintiffs -petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 1.2.2006 passed by the Sadar Munsif, Purnia in Title Suit No. 159 of 2003 whereby the Munsif in the court below has held that since the sale deed concerned is of the year 1965 and the plaintiffs sought for possession, right and title over the suit property, suit appears to be under valued, therefore, and an inquiry with regard to the (suit property) is required. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the main relief in the title concerned is for setting aside the sale deed no. 13038 of 1965 dated 29.9.1965 executed by SK Sirajuddin as guardian and next friend of the plaintiffs (minor at that time) and if the same is set aside then there will be no cloud upon the title of the plaintiffs -petitioners. However, by way of abundant precaution, declaration for right, title and possession over the suit property and if found dispossessed then relief for grant of a decree for eceovery of possession, has also been sought.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contends that since the sale deed of 1965 is under challenge, therefore, the valuation of suit has rightly been given at par with the consideration money which is reflected in the sale deed concerned. According to the petitioners, there should be no question of making an inquiry for ascertaining the market value of the land concerned as the main relief is with regard to setting aside the sale deed. Further contention is that it is well settled by now that in such cases the courts should accept the valuation declared in the plaint on the basis of the document concerned. He next submits that the suit is declatory in nature and as per Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the court fee will be collected upon the amount which has been declared by the plaintiff as the suit value. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon a decision of this court rendered in the case of Ramkishun Ram @ Sabeb Ram Vs. Wazir Mahton & Ors. reported in 1970 PLJR NUC IV. It was submitted therein that a suit for declaration that a sale deed of immovable property executed for a consideration of Rs. 6,00/ - was a complete sale, was valued at Rs. 6,00/ -. However, the learned Munsif held that the property was worth of Rs. 2,896 and asked the plaintiff to pay additional court fee on the difference. Order was challenged by filing Civil Revision. This court in its aforesaid decision had held that the value declared in the document was correct suit value. The petitioners also placed reliance upon a decision of this court in the case of Sri Sheonath Saraff Vs. Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co. Private Limited reported in 1968 PLJR 578. In the aforesaid case the plaintiff brought a suit to set aside the certificate sale which was held for Rs. 25,000/ - and also for declaration that the sale was vitiated by fraud. Plaintiff declared the suit value as Rs. 25,000/ -, however, the suit valuation was fixed by the court at Rs. 4,00000/ - and it was directed that the court fee amount will be payable upon the aforesaid sum which was actual market value. A Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision had held that ad valorem value does not mean market value but the reasonable value that was to be put by the plaintiff in his plaint, therefore, the insistence that the market value of the property should be taken into account was found to be improper. It was further held that the plaintiff himself had to value his suit for the purposes of court fee and also under Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act. Accordingly, since in that case the plaintiff valued his suit at Rs. 25,000/ - for which the property was auction sold in the certificate sale, the same was held to be valid and not arbitrary. The Apex Court in its decision rendered in the case of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 245 has held that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act 1997 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction which is dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court -fees and if the suits fall under Section 7(iv) of the Court - fees Act then the court -fees will depend upon the valuation that the plaintiff has disclosed in his plaint. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court -fee that determines the value for jurisdiction. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been followed in yet another decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Prem Kishori Devi Vs. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Katihar reported in 1982 PLJR 256 wherein it has been held that under Section 7 (iv) (C) of the Court -fees Act, liberty has been given to the plaintiff to state the valuation and when such option has been exercised by the plaintiff by stating the valuation in the plaint, it shall be accepted by the Court.