SANTA PROSAD SAHA Vs. SMMRINALINI SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., in the matter of a title suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Dacca. The facts are that the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Dacca against the petitioner and another person opposite party No. 2 for a declaration that three documents, namely a registered deed of sale of certain immovable property for Rs. 15,000, a registered mortgage bond for Rs. 10,000, and a promissory note for Rs 4,000 which purported to be executed by the plaintiff and opposite party No. 2, were fraudulent, without consideration, vitiated by coercion and undue influence and inoperative against them, and for setting aside and cancellation of the same. She stated that her suit was one for a declaration with consequential relief under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) and valued it at Rs. 150. The defence of the petitioner was that the documents in question were genuine, that the consideration for the same was a previous existing debt of Rs. 30,000 by the petitioner's deceased husband and opposite party No. 2, that the subject matter of the suit, being Rupees 29,000 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsiff. The Court heard the parties on the preliminary point and came to the conclusion that on the state of the law existing at present, it could not be said that the plaintiff had wrongfully valued the subject matter of the suit. It is urged in this Court that the learned Munsiff failed to appreciate the effect of the newly added Section 8-C, Court-fees Act, that on a proper consideration of that section it) should be held that the suit has been undervalued by the plaintiff and the Court ought to correct the valuation. Section 8-C came into operation in 1935. Before that, the relevant section was in these terms: The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:.. (7)(c) in suits to obtain a declaratory decree, where consequential relief is prayed, according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.

(2.) There is a section in the Civil P. C. relating to the matter, namely, Order 7, Rule 11, the relevant portion of which is as follows: The plaint shall be rejected in the following oases... (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

(3.) In Umatul Batul V/s. Nauji Kuer (1907) 11 C W N 705 Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ. held that the Court had jurisdiction to ascertain whether the valuation made by the plaintiff was proper. In that case there was a mortgage decree of Rs. 10,000 in respect of property of which the value was stated to be Rs. 80,000. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the mortgage decree was fraudulent and for an injunction that the decree might never be executed and the suit was valued at Rs. 100. It was held on the facts that the suit must be valued at Rs. 10,000. The view taken in Umatul Batul V/s. Nauji Kuer (1907) 11 C W N 705, cited above, was criticised by Rankin, C.J. in In re Kalipada Mukerjee . It was observed that Order 7, Rule 11 was mere procedure; it was not meant to enlarge any taxing section but only to ensure the proper application of the Court-fees Act and other Acts; that there was no such provision in the Court-fees Act itself; further that in cases falling under Section 7(iv)(c) no real objective basis of valuation will in general be possible. Both the cases were considered in the Full Bench case in Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and Supply Society Ltd. v. Mafijuddin Ahmed . In that case two questions were referred to the Full Bench: (1) Whether in suits to obtain a decree or order where consequential relief is prayed for, and in suits to obtain an injunction where the Court finds the relief claimed is undervalued, it is entitled under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C., to require the plaintiff to correct the valuation stated by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 7, Court-fees Act? and (2) whether the case in Umatul Batul V/s. Nauji Kuer (1907) 11 C W N 705 was correctly decided? Mukherjee, J. in his judgment in the Full Bench case answered both the questions in the affirmative, but observed as to question 1: But so long as there are no rules framed under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act (7 of 1887), the Court would have no standard before it on which it may regard the plaintiff's valuation as an undervaluation, and its powers of correction would have to be exercised on that footing.