1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code of an order of the Court below holding that the suit has been properly valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction.
2. The non-applicant Umakant had instituted a suit against his mother and the applicant Rajdhar Buwa for accounts. He had valued the suit for courtrfee and for Jurisdiction at Rs. 100/. In the schedule to the plaint ho has stated that during the years in which the applicant was in possession of the property a net saving of Rs. 51,948-9-3 must have been made by him. On the basis of this statement it was contended by the applicant before the Court below that the valuation for jurisdiction should have been Rs. 51,948-9-3 and that the same should have been the valuation for Court-fee. This contention was not accepted by the Court below. He has therefore come up in revision.
3. in support of his argument Shri Chan-durkar, learned counsel for the applicant, relies upon a decision of Vyas J. in Bhikamdas Bala-ram Bamb v. Motilal Gambhirmal Kothari, : AIR1958Bom307 (A). In the first place, that decision is distinguishable on the ground that there the plaintiff had actually valued the suit for Rs, 22,500/- for jurisdiction but at Rs. 265/- only for purposes of Court-fee; whereas in the instant case, as would be clear _from the plaint, the plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs. 100/- only not only for purposes of Court-fee but also for jurisdiction. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Judge that where a plaintiff has valued a suit for jurisdiction at a particular figure then the value for Court-fee should also be at that figure, does not appear to be based upon any authority and is directly against the language of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The learned Judge has placed reliance upon a decision in Bansilal Lalchand v. Bhikubai 49 Bom LR 545 : AIR 1948 Bom 3. But what was held in that case was, and this has been also noticed by the learned Judge in his order, that the determination of the value for the payment of Court-fees automatically determined the value for the purposes of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. What the learned Judge has done is to hold the reverse, that is to say, according to him, the specification of the value of the suit for jurisdiction automatically determines its value for purposes of Court-fees. This is not what Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act says. That section is in the following terms :
'Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paragraphs v. v1 and ix, and paragraph x, clause (d). court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 3870, the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.'
I may also point out that it was held in Arjun Singh v. Phani Bhusan AIR 1948 Cal 200 , that the valuation for purposes of Court-fee is not to be determined by the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction but vice versa. Similarly in Karam Rahi v. Muhammad Bashir AIR 1949 Lah 116, it was held that in a suit falling under Section 7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act, where the plaintiff has stated in the plaint a particular value for purposes of Court-fee and a different value for purposes of jurisdiction, it is the former that determines tho value for purposes of jurisdiction. With groat respect to the learned Judge, therefore, I cannot accept the view taken by him in Bbikamdas' case (A).
4. Shri Chandurkar then says that the valuation set out by the plaintiff in a suit governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act is not final and where the Court finds that it is arbitrary or unreasonable or wanting in bona fides it can make its own determination of the value. In support of his contention, he relies upon tho decision in Pundlik v. Ramsukhbai ILR 1950 Nag 928: AIR 1951 Nag 218. No doubt this decision supports the learned counsel, but, I am afraid, in view of the_ decision of this Court in Burjor Pestonji v. Nariman Minoo, : AIR1953Bom382 (F), I cannot follow that decision. As observed by me recently in Civil Revn. No. 145 of 1957 (Bom) (G), the law accepted by this Court and clearly enunciated in various decisions to which reference has been made in Burjor's case (F) is that in a suit under Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act, a plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation upon the reliefs which he seeks and that it is not open to a Court to consider the correctness or appropriateness or otherwise of the valuation so placed by the plaintiff.
5. I am aware of the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Kashinath v. Tukaram ILR 1956 Nag 514: AIR 1956 Nag 195, in which it has been held that where the plaintiff makes no effort to value the relief claimed but on the contrary the relief is deliberately undervalued and the valuation for Court-fees bears no proportion to the value of the relief claimed, the Court is not powerless and can, under Rules 10 and11 of Order VII, Civil Procedure Code, ask the plaintiff to correct the valuation and make good the deficiency in the Court-fees. But, as already stated, this view is directly opposed to that taken by this Court in a long series of cases. In the circumstances, therefore, I must hold that the suit is properly valued both for Court-fees and jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly I dismiss the application for revision. I however make no order as to costs in this Court.
7. Revision dismissed.