Skip to content


Vachhani Keshabhai Baliabhai Vs. Vachhani Nanbha Bawaji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.108
AppellantVachhani Keshabhai Baliabhai
RespondentVachhani Nanbha Bawaji
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), section 7, cl. iv, sub-clauses (c) and (d) - suits valuation act (vii of 1887), section 8--suit for declaration of title to immoveable property--injunction claimed as consequential relief--valuation for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. - - 885 but that is a case which is clearly distinguishable, because the learned judges there treated it as a suit in which there was a claim for possession.1. the question that we have to decide is whether in a suit for a declaration and consequential relief the court must accept the value of the relief stated in the plaint for the purpose both of the court-fees and jurisdiction.2. we think that the words of section 8 of the suits valuation act, vii of 1887, lead to that conclusion; and we find that this was the view taken by the calcutta high court in hari sankar dutt v. kali kumar patra 32 c. 734.3. we have been pressed by a decision of the court in dayaram v. gordhandas 8 bom. l.r. 885 but that is a case which is clearly distinguishable, because the learned judges there treated it as a suit in which there was a claim for possession.4. we, therefore, make the rule absolute and set aside the order of the lower court with costs.
Judgment:

1. The question that we have to decide is whether in a suit for a declaration and consequential relief the Court must accept the value of the relief stated in the plaint for the purpose both of the Court-fees and jurisdiction.

2. We think that the words of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, VII of 1887, lead to that conclusion; and we find that this was the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Hari Sankar Dutt v. Kali Kumar Patra 32 C. 734.

3. We have been pressed by a decision of the Court in Dayaram v. Gordhandas 8 Bom. L.R. 885 but that is a case which is clearly distinguishable, because the learned Judges there treated it as a suit in which there was a claim for possession.

4. We, therefore, make the rule absolute and set aside the order of the lower Court with costs.


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