SHAH MALI Vs. ANWAR DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the valuation fixed by the plaintiffs for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is adequate. The lower appellate court has decided this issue against the plaintiffs holding that the valuation put by the plaintiffs in the plaint is absurd and outrageous. It has observed that the plaintiffs have not paid court fees even for the relief of declaration under Schedule II Article 17 (iii) of the Court Fees Act and as the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their plaint are for declaration and injunction and also for cancellation of the document therefore the plaintiffs should have fixed the valuation according to the value of the subject matter of the suit and the case being governed by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, court fees payable was advalorem. The learned District Judge has accordingly ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presenting the same in the competent court after correctly valuing the same both for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiffs have come up in further appeal before this court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the case before us it is important to examine the averments made in the plaint and also to look at the substance of the plaint as a whole. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in the court below for declaration to the effect that they have completed their title over the suit land measuring 36 kanals 11 marlas by prescription and have become owners. They have also prayed that the impugned sale deed whereby the defendants appellants alienated the suit land be cancelled and that a perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs possession over this land be granted From the plaint it appears that the plaintiffs have prayed for distinct reliefs namely ; for declaration of their title with permanent injunction and for cancellation of the impugned sale deed. Para No 9 of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs have valued all these reliefs only at Rs. 5/ - which is indeed fantastic According to the law on the subject the plaintiff has to value each relief sought by him separately and this he has to do in accordance with the Suits Valuation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In the instant case the plaintiffs have made a prayer for declaration of their title with injunction. They have also prayed for cancellation of the instrument. Thus these are two distinct reliefs. The first relief of declaration and injunction is a consequential relief and the relief of injunction is dependent on granting of declaration by the court. Therefore this prayer as a whole involves consequential relief and is governed by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. Similarly relief of cancellation of an instrument is also a consequential relief. The plaintiffs have to fix separate valuation for these two reliefs. In their plaint the plaintiffs have put an omnibus valuation of Rs. 5/ - which is not warranted by law and rules on the subject. Under Rule 12 of the Suits Valuation Act, suits specified in Schedule II Art. 17 of the Court Fees Act of those for which it is difficult to fix correct valuation and a fixed Court Fee is accordingly levied in such cases. Where any such case relates to land or any interest in land the value for the purpose of jurisdiction will be the value of the land or any interest in the land as fixed by the Rules.