G L VAISHNAWI Vs. TRILOKI NATH VAISHNAWI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has sued for declaration that he is the real and true , owner of the properties mentioned in the plaint which stood Benami in the name of defendant No. 1 and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the same in any manner. He has also prayed that a decree for possession in respect of land measuring 41 Kanals and 8 Marlas situated at Bagat Burzalla Tehsil Badgam as described in Schedule forming an annexure to the plaint with the direction that defendant No. 2 should remove the construction raised by him on the land be passed in his favour. He has put different valuation on the reliefâ„¢s sought by him. In Para 18 of his petition of plaint, he has stated as follows: - "The value for purposes of court -fee for 1 declaration is fixed at Rs. 10 under Schedule II Article 17 (3) Court Fees Act and Rs. 130 for the injunction. The value for jurisdiction for declaration is fixed at Rupees 100,000 and Rs. 130 for injunction and the total being Rs. 100,130. The value for purposes of court -fees so far the suit for possession is valued at eight times land revenue. Rs. 18,30 and is Rs. 146.40 jurisdictional value at fifty times the same land revenue is as Rs. 916. The properties are situated in the territorial jurisdiction and also the parties reside in the same jurisdiction so the Honble Court has jurisdiction to try this suit".

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of defendant No. 2 that the plaintiff has deliberately under -valued the suit for purposes of court -fee, that the suit being essentially for declaration with consequential relief, the valuation of the suit for purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction in terms of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act must be the same, that the plaintiff having himself valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rupees 100,130 ad valorem court -fee is chargeable on this amount viz., on Rs. 100,130 and the plaintiff should, therefore, be called upon to make up the deficiency in the court -fees.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has, on the other hand, contended that the reliefs for declaration and injunction are separate and distinct, that the relief for declaration has been correctly valued according to Article 17 (8) of Schedule 2 of the Court Fees Act, that there is no question of making up the deficiency in court -fees, and that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the valuation is not correct, he should be allowed to put the correct valuation and pay the court -fees accordingly.