Skip to content


Bachhan Vs. Municipal Board of Mirzapur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All423; 94Ind.Cas.951
AppellantBachhan
RespondentMunicipal Board of Mirzapur
Excerpt:
- - 6. we therefore direct that this appeal be not heard until the plaintiff appellant has made good the deficiency reported by the office. we allow a month for making good the deficiency......valued what he calls, the 'thing claimed', at rs. 1,100 and consequently the suit was instituted in the court of the subordinate judge. it seems to us therefore that having regard to the provisions of the two sections just mentioned the plaintiff was bound to pay a court-fee for relief by way of injunction on the valuation of rs. 1,100 and that is what the office has reported.6. we therefore direct that this appeal be not heard until the plaintiff appellant has made good the deficiency reported by the office. of course the appellant is at liberty if he desires to avoid the payment of the deficiency reported in respect of this court, to amend his plaint and memorandum of appeal. we give the plaintiff an opportunity to do so. we allow a month for making good the deficiency.
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. We have heard the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in this case in connexion with the office report, dated the 17th of February 1926, regarding the deficiency in the Court-fee in all three Courts. According to the office report there is a deficiency of Rs. 227-8-0 payable by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. In our opinion the office report; is correct. The suit was brought for the purpose of obtaining a declaration of title regarding a certain piece of land in Mirzapur and for the declaratory relief Court-fee of Rs. 10 was paid. Further relief was sought in that the plaintiff asked the Court to issue a perpetual injunction restraining of Municipal Board of Mirzapur from interfering in any way with the construction of a chabutra which the plaintiff desired to erect on the land in question.

3. In paragraph 7 of the plaint we find the following:

For purposes of jurisdiction the value of the thing claimed is Rs, 1,100 and for payment of Court-fee it is Rs, 10, in respect of declaration, and Rs, 10 for the issue of an injunction.

4. As regards the relief by way of declaration there can be no dispute. As regards the Court-fee payable for relief by way of an injunction, that is regulated by Section 7(4)(d) of the Court-fees Act, which lays down that in a suit to obtain an injunction the Court-fee shall be paid according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

5. We have to read this along with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act VII of 1887, according to which in suits of the class we are now considering the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. In this case for purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued what he calls, the 'thing claimed', at Rs. 1,100 and consequently the suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It seems to us therefore that having regard to the provisions of the two sections just mentioned the plaintiff was bound to pay a Court-fee for relief by way of injunction on the valuation of Rs. 1,100 and that is what the office has reported.

6. We therefore direct that this appeal be not heard until the plaintiff appellant has made good the deficiency reported by the office. Of course the appellant is at liberty if he desires to avoid the payment of the deficiency reported in respect of this Court, to amend his plaint and memorandum of appeal. We give the plaintiff an opportunity to do so. We allow a month for making good the deficiency.


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