Skip to content


Govinda Krishna SaThe Vs. Hanmaya Lingaya Fulmali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 972 of 1919
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Bom65; (1920)22BOMLR1450
AppellantGovinda Krishna Sathe
RespondentHanmaya Lingaya Fulmali
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), section 7 (iv) (d) - suits valuation act (vii of 1887), section 8-suit for injunction-valuation of claim.;in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff valued the claim at rs. 10 for purposes of court fees, and at rs. 500 for purposes of jurisdiction. he paid court fees on the former amount. the court tied the plaintiff down to the second valuation and called upon him to pay court fees on that amount. on appeal :-;reversing the order, that the plaintiff was entitled under section 7, clause (iv) (d), of the court fees act 1870, to value his claim at kb. 10 for court fee purposes and it was wholly unnecessary for him to fix any other for the purposes of jurisdiction, under section 8 of the suits valuation act 1887. - .....the appeal was rejected.3. as the plaintiff was entitled under clause 7 of the court fees act to value his claim at rs. 10 it was wholly unnecessary for the plaintiff to fix any value for the purposes of jurisdiction, as by a 8 of the suits valuation act the value determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same: bai hiragavri v. gidabdas : (1913)15bomlr1123 . this principle was approved of by the privy council in swnderabai v. collector of belgaum (1918) 21 bom. l.r. 1148 4. in raj krishna dey v. bipin bihari dey i.l.r. (1912) cal. 245 the court considered that the legislature never intended that the plaintiff should be at liberty to assign any arbitrary value to the relief claimed and thus be free to choose capriciously.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff sued for an injunction. Such a suit comes within Section 7, para (iv), of the Court Fees Act and the Court fee had to be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought was valued in the plaint, which valuation the plaintiff was entitled to fix himself.

2. He valued the claim at Rs. 10 but also added another valuation of Rs. 500 for purposes of jurisdiction. The memorandum of appeal was valued in the same way. The District Judge holding that under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act there could not be two valuations in a suit of this nature, one for Court fees and another for jurisdiction, ordered the plaintiff to pay the balance of Court fees as if the claim had been valued at Rs. 500. On the plaintiff failing to comply with this order the appeal was rejected.

3. As the plaintiff was entitled under clause 7 of the Court Fees Act to value his claim at Rs. 10 it was wholly unnecessary for the plaintiff to fix any value for the purposes of jurisdiction, as by a 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the value determinable for the computation of Court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same: Bai Hiragavri v. Gidabdas : (1913)15BOMLR1123 . This principle was approved of by the Privy Council in Swnderabai v. Collector of Belgaum (1918) 21 Bom. L.R. 1148

4. In Raj Krishna Dey v. Bipin Bihari Dey I.L.R. (1912) Cal. 245 the Court considered that the Legislature never intended that the plaintiff should be at liberty to assign any arbitrary value to the relief claimed and thus be free to choose capriciously the forum of trial or appeal. Whatever the Legislature may have intended, that is the meaning which has been given to Section 7 of the Court Fees Act by the Privy Council.

5. The appeal must be allowed and the District Judge must be directed to take appeal No. 96 of 1919 in his Court on to his file and dispose of it according to law. The costs of this appeal will be costs in the appeal to the lower Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //