Skip to content


A.K. Loganathan Vs. Channarayappa and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 904 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Kant167; AIR1959Mys167; (1958)36MysLJ422
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7 and 12; Mysore Court Fees Act, 1900 - Sections 4; Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - Sections 8 and 9; Mysore Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 1951 - Sections 8;
AppellantA.K. Loganathan
RespondentChannarayappa and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS. Govinda Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateE.V. Mathew, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....order 23 rule 3-b of cpc. explanation (d) of order 23 rule 3-b of cpc states that a representative suit means, any other suit in law in which the decree passed may, by virtue of the provisions of cpc or of any other law for the time being in force, bind any person who is not named as party to the suit. bombay public trust act comes within the expression ‘any other law for time being in force’. it is settled that the decision under section 50 of the act binds not only the parties to the suit but also those who are interested in the trust. the judgment operates as a judgment in rem and is not merely a judgment in personem. admittedly, the compromise has been entered into by the parties without the leave of the court. in the circumstances, the compromise entered into between the..........valuation act. it is not correct to say that a suit for injunction falls under section 9 of the suitsvaluation act. section 9 applies to cases where fixed court-fees are payable, as the plaintiff has fixed the amount for purposes of court-fee at rs. 200/-, this suit should have been filed in the munsiff's court as the jurisdiction value also be come. rs. 200/-.the lower court is not right in its view that the value fixed lor the jurisdiction becomes the value for purposes of court-fee. it is just the reverse. undoubtedly it is open to the plaintiff to put the value at rs. 10, 500/-, for purposes of court-fee if he wants the suit to be tried by the learned civil judge but then he will have to pay court-fee on rs. 10,500/-. if on the other hand he sticks to rs. 200/- as the valuation.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 45 of 1957 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Bangalore, has come up in revision against the order of the lower Court, directing him to pay court-fee on Rs. 10,500/-.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order of eviction in H. R. C. No. 117/1956 does not bind him. He also prayed for a permanent injunction against the defendants from executing the order of delivery of possession in Execution Case No. 361 of 1957 pursuant to the said H. R. C. Order.

3. He valued the suit for purposes of court fee at Rs. 200/- and paid Court-fee on Rs. 200/-. For purpose of jurisdiction he valued the suit at Rs. 10,500/-. The Court below held that the valuation for purposes of court-lee should be the same as that of the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. Hence he has been called upon to pay additional court-fee. The petitioner complains that the said order is invalid and prayed for revision of the order.

4. Before I deal with the merits of the revision, I shall dispose of the objection raised by the respondents. According to him the plaint should have been valued under Section 4(iv)(c) ot the Mysore Court-Fees Act as the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration as well as an injunction. But the petitioner contends that the suit is essentially one for injunction though it contains the prayer for declaration that the order of eviction in H. H. C. No. 117/56 does not bind him.

His case is that in substance the suit is one for injunction. According to him the said H. R. C. order does not bind him and there is no obstacle in his way which is required to he removed before he can get the relief of injunction. All that he wants is that his right to remain in the house should not be jeopardized by the execution of order.

This he is claiming in his own right. His prayer for declaration should be considered as ancillary if not as surplusage. According to him even the averments in the plaint relating to the validity of the order in question should be ignored as redundant. He has also filed an amendment application in this Court to delete the relief praying for declaration. The Court below has also proceeded on the footing that the suit is one for injunction and decided the question of court-fee as under Section 4(iv)(d) and not under Section 4(iv)(c). The respondent has not challenged this Order even if he has a right to do so. Hence the objection cannot be considered.

5. This takes me to the subject matter of the revision petition. There is no doubt that under Section 4(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act plaintiff could put his own valuation. But could he value the suit at Rs. 200/- for purposes of court-fees and at Rs. 10,500/- for purposes of jurisdiction? The plaintiff petitioner contends that he can do so. The Court below has come to the conclusion that he cannot adopt such a valuation. According to the Court below the valuation for purposes of Court-fee should be the same as that adopted for purposes of jurisdiction. The relevant section which governs the position is Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1951 It is as follows :

'Wherein suits..... Court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act.... the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.'

Hence whatever the value the plaintiff determines for court-fees must necessarily be the value for the purposes of jurisdiction. But Sri S. Govinda Rao, the learned Counsel for the petition contends that this section applied only to cases where ad valorem court fee has to be paid under the Court Fees Act. According to him in a suit for injunction the plaintiff need not pay court-fees on the ad valorem basis.

This contention is untenable. Even in a suit for injunction the plaintiff has to pay court-fees on ad valorem basis. Rut he has the discretion to fix the ad valorem. Once he fixes the amount for the purpose of paying court-fees then that becomes the value for the purposes of jurisdiction also, under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. It is not correct to say that a suit for injunction falls under Section 9 of the SuitsValuation Act. Section 9 applies to cases where fixed court-fees are payable, As the plaintiff has fixed the amount for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 200/-, this suit should have been filed in the Munsiff's Court as the jurisdiction value also be come. Rs. 200/-.

The lower Court is not right in its view that the value fixed lor the jurisdiction becomes the value for purposes of court-fee. It is just the reverse. Undoubtedly it is open to the plaintiff to put the value at Rs. 10, 500/-, for purposes of court-fee if he wants the suit to be tried by the learned Civil Judge but then he will have to pay Court-fee on Rs. 10,500/-. If on the other hand he sticks to Rs. 200/- as the valuation tor the purpose of court-fees, then the plaint will have to be returned for presentation to a proper Court.

6. The order of the Court below is accordingly modified. Subject to the modification, this revision petition is dismissed. The amendment application will be sent down to the lower court to be dealt witn according to law. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondents.

7. Order modified and revision dismissed.


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