Skip to content


B.S. Nagraj Vs. S. Manjappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1791 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Kant163; AIR1972Mys163
ActsMysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Sections 7(2), 26, 50, 50(1) and 50(2); Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - Sections 7 and 8
AppellantB.S. Nagraj
RespondentS. Manjappa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateT.S. Ramchandra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV. Narasimhamurthy, ;H.V. Ramaswamy and ;M.R. Ranganatha Rao, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 59 & 63: [a.n.venugopala gowda, j] proof of execution of will held, when the genuineness /execution of the will is questioned, the due execution has to be proved by the person who produces the document to make or establish any claim. hence, to prove the execution of the will, the examination of at least one attesting witness is necessary. however, though a will, ordinarily must be proved, keeping in view the provisions of section 63 of the indian succession act and section 68 of the evidence act, in the event of the unavailability of the attesting witnesses on account of death or other similar circumstances being brought on record, the proof of execution of the will and attestation can be considered in the relaxed manner by having recourse..........the jurisdiction of courts, in a suit falling under section 26(c) of the mysore court-fees and suits valuation act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. the facts which lie behind this petition are as follows: the 1st respondent before me. instituted a suit in the court of the civil judge at shimoga for permanent injunction complaining interference from the petitioner. the suit was valued at rs. 100/- for the purpose of payment of court-fees under section 26(c) of the act and the court-fee paid accordingly. but for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit was valued at rs. 15,000/- being the market value of the suit schedule property. the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit before the civil judge's court contending that there cannot be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is. whether the value for the purpose of payment of court-fees, should also be the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, in a suit falling under Section 26(c) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The facts which lie behind this petition are as follows: The 1st respondent before me. instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge at Shimoga for permanent injunction complaining interference from the petitioner. The suit was valued at Rs. 100/- for the purpose of payment of court-fees under Section 26(c) of the Act and the court-fee paid accordingly. But for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit was valued at Rs. 15,000/- being the market value of the suit schedule property. The petitioner raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Judge's court contending that there cannot be two valuations; one for court-fees and another for jurisdiction, in respect of a suit falling under Section 26(c) of the Act. He further contended that in such a suit, the value for court-fees should be the value for jurisdiction.

The learned Civil Judge while repelling that contention held that under Section 50(1) of the Act, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction should be the market value of the suit property and not the value as determined for the purpose of payment of court-fees. He therefore held that the suit was properly instituted in his court. Hence this revision petition.

3. Sri T. S. Ramachandra. learned counsel for the petitioner pressed before me the same contentions which were not found favour by the learned Civil Judge. According to him. the suit ought to have been instituted before the Munsiffs court, regard being had to its valuation.

4. The relevant provisions which have got a material bearing on the question for determination, are Sections 50 and 26(c) of the Act. Section 50 of the Act runs thus:

'50. Suits not otherwise provided for.-

(1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction ot courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law. value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.

Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 7. the value of land specified in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the said subsection shall, for purposes of determiningthe jurisdiction of courts, be the market value of such land.

(2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint'.

Section 26(c) of the Act is in these terms:--

'26. Suits for injunction.-- In a suit for injunction(c) in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees one hundred whichever is higher'.

5. Section 50 of the Act is in Chapter V of the Act. It applied to those suits where specific provision is not otherwise made in the Act or in any other law for the purpose of determining the valuation for jurisdiction. If there is any provision in the Act as to how a suit for injunction will have to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction, then obviously Section 50 is not applicable. I do not find any other provision in the Act providing for the valuation of such a suit. I must therefore conclude that Section 50 governs the suit in question. Then the value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under the Act must also be the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court.

The proviso to Section 50 is not attracted to the instant case as sub-section (2) of Section 7 excludes Section 26 (c) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act also does not govern the case because that would be applicable to a suit where fee is payable at a fixed rate and a suit for injunction is not one of those suits in which a fixed court-fee is payable.

6. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (Act No. VII of 1887) is similar to Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act. While dealing with the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (Act No. VII of 1887) this is what the Supreme Court observed in S. Rm. Ar. Sp Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, : [1958]1SCR1021 , thus:

'.....In other words, so far assuits falling under Section 7, Sub-section (iv) of the Act are concerned, Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the same. There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees and that is natural enough. The computation of court-fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim, and the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court-fee stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court-fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa'.

The ratio of the decision equally applies to the instant case. In that view, since the relief sought in the suit has been valued at Rs. 100/- for the purpose of payment of court-fees, that alone could be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction of the court. The suit, therefore, ought to have been filed before the competent Munsiff's court.

7. For the reasons stated above, this revision Petition is allowed with costs; the impugned order is set aside; and the lower court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.


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