Skip to content


Moolchand and ors. Vs. Mst. Khushed Bi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1067 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1984MP32
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7 - Article 17; Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - Sections 3 and 4; Madhya Pradesh Rules - Rule 2
AppellantMoolchand and ors.
RespondentMst. Khushed Bi and ors.
Appellant AdvocateR.C. Agrawal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.D. Hundekar, Adv.
Cases ReferredIn Bhagwat Singh v. Nanhibai Civil Revn. No.
Excerpt:
- - 313 of 1973, decided on 30th july, 1974. 5. learned counsel for parties contended that for purposes of jurisdiction, section 3 of the suits valuation act empowers the state government to frame rules for determining the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the court-fees act, section 7. paras (v) and (vi) and para (x) clause (d). so far as the question raised in this revision petition is concerned, it will be a question falling under section 7(iv)(c) of the court-fees act and not section 7 (v), (vi) or (x) as the suit in this case is a suit for declaration ,and the question referred to us also precisely talks about that......is sought in respect of title of the land which is agricultural land separately assessed to land revenue and the learned judge, therefore, framed two questions for answer ,and hon'ble the chief justice has constituted this bench for answering the two questions. the questions are :--'1. what shall be the proper valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction in a suit for a declaration of title to the , land separately assessed to land revenue? 2. what shall be the amount of court-fee payable on such a relief?' 2. the non-applicants plaintiffs claim-ed a declaration of title to the suit lands and also sought a relief of perpetual injunction. the suit lands are agricultural holdings assessed to land revenue. the market value of the lands is shown to be rs. 13,500/- and the plaintiffs.....
Judgment:

Oza, J.

1. This revision petition was heard by Hon'ble single Judge who by his order dated 23-12-82 felt that there is a conflict of views in two single Bench judgments of this Court with regard to valuation of claim in a suit for declaration for purposes of jurisdiction where the declaration is sought in respect of title of the land which is agricultural land separately assessed to land revenue and the learned Judge, therefore, framed two questions for answer ,and Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Bench for answering the two questions. The questions are :--

'1. What shall be the proper valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction in a suit for a declaration of title to the , land separately assessed to land revenue?

2. What shall be the amount of court-fee payable on such a relief?'

2. The non-applicants plaintiffs claim-ed a declaration of title to the suit lands and also sought a relief of perpetual injunction. The suit lands are agricultural holdings assessed to land revenue. The market value of the lands is shown to be Rs. 13,500/- and the plaintiffs have valued the suit claim in these terms :--

'The suit is valued for the relief of injunction, both for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee, at Rs. 300/- on which Court fee of Rs. 30/- is paid. The suit is valued for purposes of declaration i.e. relief of declaration, for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 13,500/-, and for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 300/- on which court-fee of Rs. 30/- is being paid.'

The applicants-defendants raised an objection about the valuation in the trial Court and as it was not -accepted, raised the same question before the learned single Judge. The Contention advanced by the petitioners-defendants was that the valuation for jurisdiction in the case of agricultural lands separately assessed toland revenue will be 20 times of the land revenue payable and that according to the petitioners-defendants will come to rupees 832.40 and not the market value as shown by the plaintiffs. It was also contended that the suit, therefore, will not be within the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge but will fall within the jurisdiction of Civil Judge Class II.

4. The learned single Judge has referred to decisions In Bhagwat Singh v. Nanhibai Civil Revn. No. 421 of 1973, decided on 21st March 1974 and Chhotey lal v. Lachiram Rajak, Civil Revn. No. 313 of 1973, Decided on 30th July, 1974.

5. Learned Counsel for parties contended that for purposes of jurisdiction, Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act empowers the State Government to frame rules for determining the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court-fees Act, Section 7. paras (v) and (vi) and para (x) Clause (d). So far as the question raised in this revision petition is concerned, it will be a question falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and not Section 7 (v), (vi) or (x) as the suit in this case is a suit for declaration ,and the question referred to us also precisely talks about that.

6. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act reads:--

' (iv) (c). For a declaratory decree and consequential relief.-

To obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed.'

And therefore, the question that has arisen is as to what should be the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit of the nature falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act reads :--

'4. Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to and not to exceed the value of the land.-

Where a suit mentioned in the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7, para (iv) or Schedule II, Article 17, relates to land or an interest in land of which the value has been determined by rules under the last foregoing section, the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules.' This section provides for suits to which Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act or Schedule II, Article 17 applies and it is pro-vided that the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in such suits (suits to which Section 7(iv) or Schedule II, Article 17 applies), will not exceed the value of the land so determined by the rules framed under the last foregoing section. It is therefore, clear that the value of the land which can be determined under the rules framed under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act will be the value of land and that valuation for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit to which Section 7(iv) of Schedule II, Item 17 applies will not exceed the value so determined under the rules.

7. Under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act rules have been framed fordetermining the value of land Rule 2 ofthese rules reads :--

'2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, VII of 1887, the State Government has made the following rules for determining the value of land in the Madhya Pradesh and Berar for purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in paras (v), (vi) and para, (x) Clause (d) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870):--

(a) In these rules 'estate' means any land subject to the payment of revenue for which the proprietor or farmer or ryot shall have executed a separate engagement to Government or which in the absence of such engagement shall have been separately assessed with revenue.

I. In suits for the possession of land mentioned in para, (v) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870) the value of the land shall be deemed to be as follows:--

(1) Where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of the estate paying annual revenue to Government or where the land forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register or separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently-- twenty times the revenue so payable.

(2) Where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government or where the land forms part of such estate end is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled but not permanently --fifteen times the revenue so payable :

(3) Where the land pays no such revenue or has been partially exempted from such payment or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of suchpayment and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint --fifteen times such net profits: but where no such net profits have arisen therefrom the amount at which the court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood:

(4) Where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned -- the market value of the land.

II. In suits to enforce a right of preemption (mentioned in Section 7) para (vi) of the Court-fees Act, (VII of 1870) the value of the land shall be computed in accordance with Rule 1.

III. In suits for specific performance of an award relating to land (mentioned in Section 7, para X, Clause (d) of the Court-fees Act, (VII of 1870)) the value of the land shall be computed in accordance with Rule 1.' Clause I talks of suits for possession of land as mentioned in para, (v) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act and the value of the land shall be deemed to be as has been provided in Sub-clause (1) and it lays down that if the land is an entire estate or a definite share which is assessed to land revenue then the value shall be twenty times the revenue so payable.

8. It, therefore, appears that under this rule, the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit to which para, (v) of Section 7 applies, will be 20 times of the land revenue if that land, either the whole estate or a part thereof, is separately assessed and this valuation because of Section 4 of Suits Valuation Act has also been made the basis for valuation of land for purposes of suits to which Section 7(iv) or Schedule II, Article 17 applies and it restricts the value to be not more than the value which is determined in accordance with the rules framed under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act and which will be 20 times the land revenue.

9. It appeals that these provisions of the Suits Valuation Act and the rules framed thereunder have not been noticed in the decisions referred to by the learned single Judge. It is, therefore, clear that the proper valuation for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit for declaration of the land separately assessed to land revenue will not be more than 20 times of the land revenue payable and inthis view of the matter, therefore, our answer to the first question is that the proper valuation for purpose of jurisdiction in a suit for a declaration of title will be if the land is separately assessed not more than twenty times of the land revenue.

10. So far as the second question is concerned, that refers to the court fees and it indicates as to what should be the court fees in a suit where such relief as is indicated in Question No. 1 is sought: Question No. 1 talks of a suit for declaration only and this will squarely fall within the ambit of item 17, Clause (iii) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. Clause (iii) of item 17 of Schedule II reads:--

'17 (iii) to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed.'

And the court fees provided in this schedule for such a relief is Rs. 30/- (fixed court fees). In view of this, our answer to the second question would be that the court fees payable on such a relief with be Rs. 30/- as provided in item 17, Clause (iii) of Schedule II.

11. The questions are, therefore answered as stated above. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.


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