Skip to content


Bhimsangji Chhatrasangji Vs. Dolatsangi Hamirsangji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Appeal from Order No. 42 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom282; (1925)27BOMLR247
AppellantBhimsangji Chhatrasangji
RespondentDolatsangi Hamirsangji
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....(ii), 7 (iv) (c), and 7 (v) (vi), (ix) (x) - suits valuation act (vii of 1887), section 8-annuity-suit for declaration as to payment of annuity-toda giras hak-value of claim-court fee purposes- jurisdiction purposes.;the valuation of claim in a suit for declaration of the right to recover the amount of toda (giras hak from (government is the amount of the annuity for one) year for court fee purposes under section 7 (iv) (c) of the court fees act , 1870; and it is the same for the purpose of jurisdiction also, under section 8 of the suits valuation act 1887. - - ' all that the plaintiff, was seeking was a declaration that he was entitled to an annuity which was enjoyed by bai suraj, and having got that declaration, he would be entitled to go to the official whose duty it was to pay..........subordinate judge at ankleshwar who passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.2. on appeal to the district judge, an issue was raised whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. the district judge held that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the subordinate judge of the second class at ankleshwar, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court under rule 10 of order vii of the civil procedure code.3. we think that that order was wrong it depends, in the first place, upon what value should be placed on the first relief claimed, namely, the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the toda giras hak of rs. 500. the district, judge thought the claim was for payment of an annuity, and the value for the purposes of the court-fee under.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff sued inter alia for a declaration that ho was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of 11s 500 received by Bai Surajkuvar as her heir and as such entitled to recover the same. The total claim was valued for Court-fees at Rs. 2143-5-8 and also for jurisdiction. The suit was tried by the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Ankleshwar who passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

2. On appeal to the District Judge, an issue was raised whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Judge held that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Class at Ankleshwar, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under rule 10 of Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. We think that that order was wrong It depends, in the first place, upon what value should be placed on the first relief claimed, namely, the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of Rs. 500. The District, Judge thought the claim was for payment of an annuity, and the value for the purposes of the Court-fee under Section 7 (ii) would then be ton times the amount claimed to he payable for one year. We do not think it can be said that the plaintiff was claiming payment of an annuity, the suit really comes within H. 7 (iv) (c) ' to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed.' All that the plaintiff, was seeking was a declaration that he was entitled to an annuity which was enjoyed by Bai Suraj, and having got that declaration, he would be entitled to go to the official whose duty it was to pay the annuity, and demand payment according to the decree of the Court. The Court fee stamp would be according to the amount at which the relief sought was valued in the plaint, namely Rs. 500.

4. The nest question is what would be the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value as determinable for the computation of Court fees in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paragraphs v, vi, ix and paragraph x, Clause (d), is the same for purposes of jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly the appeal will be allowed and the appeal will be sent back to the District Judge for being heard on its merits. The appellant will be entitled to his costs of the appeal.


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