Skip to content


Haribandhu Mohanty Vs. Harekrishna Behera and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 101 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Ori280
ActsCort-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7; Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - Sections 9; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11
AppellantHaribandhu Mohanty
RespondentHarekrishna Behera and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL. Mohanty, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.S. Rao, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredRamkhelawan Sahu v. Surendra Sahi
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........down. but until such standards are laid down by appropriate rules framed under section 9 of the suits valuation act, it would not be possible for the court to exercise, this power except in those classes of cases in which the valuation made by the plaintiff is illegal, palpably absurd manifestly illogical or arithmetically wrong.' in the case of arunachalam chetty v. rangasamy pillai, 28 ind cas 79 : (air 1915 mad 948)(c) a full bench of the madras high court held that in a suit for a declaration with consequential relief falling under section 7(iv)(c) of the court-fees act, the court is bound to accept the valuation put by the plaintiff, on which ad valorem fee should be paid. in the case of burjor pestonji v. nariman minoo, air 1953 bom 382 (d), it was field: 'a plaintiff is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.V.B. Rao, J.

1. The petitioner, defendant in the suit before the First Munsif, Cuttack files this application in revision against the order of the Munsif holding that the valuation Of the suit given by the, plaintiffs and the court-fee paid on the same are correct.

2. The plaintiffs suit as finally appears from the plaint after amendment, is a suit fora declaration of their title and permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from disturbing the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The suit lands are about 7 gunthas in extent. The defendant's contention was that the suit lands were valued at about Rs. 15,000/- and as such the court-fee paid was not correct, the valuation put by the plaintiff also was not correct and the Court had no Jurisdiction to try the suit.

These preliminary contentions of the defendant are the subject-matter of issues Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit which were decided by the learned Munsif in the first instance. The learned Munsif held that the suit being a suit for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction, the Plaintiffs were at liberty to value the reliefs as they pleased and that the valuation in the plaint could not be questioned.

3. Mr. L. Mohanty, the learned counsel forthe petitioner vehemently contended that the order of the learned Munsif was wrong; that the learned Munsif having found that the value of die suit lands was Rs. 3500/- ought to have held that the suit was not properly valued; and that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. According to Mr. Mohanty the market value of the lands ought to have been the value of the consequential relief prayed for.

No doubt in the first instance, the plaintiffs' suit was for a declaration of title, for confirmation or recovery of possession and for a permanent injunction. But this fact cannot be taken into consideration as the prayer relating to possession was deleted and the suit, as it now stands, is only for a declaration of title and for injunction which is the consequential relief. Mr. Mohanty relied upon the decision in the case of Ramcharitar Panday v. Bassit Rai, AIR 1932 Pat 9 (A) and contended that the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration of title and consequential relief is bound to fix a reasonable valuation and that the Court is empowered to revise the valuation put by the plaintiff. In the above case it was held by the Patna High Court:

'A plaintiff seeking consequential relief is bound to fix a reasonable valuation. The Court is empowered to revise the valuation put by the plaintiff and if on such revision it is of opinion that the valuation is insufficient or arbitrary it has jurisdiction to fix a right value.'

Mr. Mohanty contends that the opposite parties in this case have arbitrarily valued their relief and consequently the Court has to reviso it especially in view of the finding that the market value of the property is Rs. 3500/-. In the case if Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and Supply Society Ltd. v. Mafizuddin Ahmed, 149 Ind Cas 3: (AIR 1934 Cal 448) (B), a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held:

'It cannot be disputed that reasonable standards may with safety be laid down giving the plaintiff all legitimate option that he may be reasonably entitled to and proceeding on the lines indicated by the legislature in such stand-aids as they themselves have laid down. But until such standards are laid down by appropriate rules framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, it would not be possible for the Court to exercise, this power except in those classes of cases in which the valuation made by the plaintiff is illegal, palpably absurd manifestly illogical or arithmetically wrong.'

In the case of Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasamy Pillai, 28 Ind Cas 79 : (AIR 1915 Mad 948)(C) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that in a suit for a declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, the Court is bound to accept the valuation put by the plaintiff, on which ad valorem fee should be paid. In the case of Burjor Pestonji v. Nariman Minoo, AIR 1953 Bom 382 (D), it was field:

'A plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation upon the relief which he seeks in the suit if the suit falls under Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act, and if he has put a valuation, then that valuation is conclusive for the purpose of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act and the jurisdiction of the Court must be determined according to the valuation so put by the plaintiff. It is, not open to the Court to go behind that valuation and to consider whether the valuation is a proper valuation or not.'

It is conceded that no rules are framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act.

4. In this case, the property in respect of which injunction is prayed for is 7 gunthas. According to the sale deeds filed by the plaintiffs in the Court below, the valuation of similar land in 1939 was equal to the value put by the plaintiffs who valued the relief for injunction at Rs. 300/-. According to the sale deeds flied by the defendant, the value no doubt increased for similar land at the present time and the learned Munsif also came to the conclusion that the value of the suit lands might be Rs. 3500/-.

But in view of the above facts, I do not think, the value put by the plaintiffs is arbitrary or illogical The suit being a suit for a declaration of title with consequential relief for injunction, the plaintiffs' valuation has to be accepted and that would be the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. Accordingly, I am of opinion thatthe learned Munsif was right in his conclusion.

5. Mr. M. S. Rao, the learned counsel for the opposite parties also contended that the matter of court-fee is, in essence, a matter between the plaintiffs and the Government and in such cases the defendant's application in revision ought not to be allowed. In the case of Ramkhelawan Sahu v. Surendra Sahi, 18 Pat LT 977: (AIR 1938 Pat 22) (E), a Special Bench of the Patna High Court held:

'The Court deciding the question of court-fee is deciding an issue not as between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein his decision both on law and fact is not subject to revision but is deciding an issue as between the Crown and the plaintiff: and should its decision be adverse to the plaintiff it amounts to a decision to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to try the issues as between the plaintiff and the defendant. Its decision in such a case is subject) to the revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court. Where, however, the decision is in favour of the plaintiff, it is not open to the defendant to apply to the Court for revision.'

On the strength of this decision. Mr. Rao contends that the revision itself by the defendant is not maintainable.

6. For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.


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