Skip to content


Khetrabasi Padhan Vs. Batakrishna Padhan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 375 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Ori262; 35(1969)CLT476
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 3, 7 and 9
AppellantKhetrabasi Padhan
RespondentBatakrishna Padhan and ors.
Appellant AdvocateB. Patnaik, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateH.G. Panda, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - panda however raised an interesting question that the market value of the disputed land would have determined the jurisdictional value, and as such the learned munsif......plaintiff that the disputed 89.83 acres have been separately assessed has not been disputed. the disputed land therefore constitutes a definite share of an estate. section 7(v)(b) of the court fees act has full application. the valuation given by the plaintiff for purpose of court-fee should be ten times the revenue payable. section 7(v)(d) of the court fees act has no application to this case. if the disputed land would not have been a definite share of the estate and would not have been separately assessed, then alone the plaintiff would have been liable to value the suit for purpose of court-fee at the market value of the land. the aforesaid conclusion would have been enough to dispose of the civil revision. 5. mr. panda however raised an interesting question that the market value.....
Judgment:
ORDER

G.K. Misra, J.

1. The plaintiff filed T. S. No. 29 of 1965 in the court of the Munsif, Boudh, for granting relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently the plaint was amended with an alternative prayer for recovery of possession if the plaintiff was found to have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. The disputed property consists of 89.83 acres. It constitutes a definite share of an estate consisting of 95.10 acres. The plaintiff valued the, relief for recovery of possession at 10 times the annual revenue payable for the purpose of court-fees under Section 7(v)(b) of the Court Fees Act. The learned Munsif held that Section 7(v)(d) applied and that the plaintiff should value the suit at the market value of the land. The Civil Revision has been filed against this order.

2. Mr. Patnaik contends that Section 7(v)(b) applies. Mr. Panda concedes the aforesaid contention and in my opinion rightly.

3. Section 7(v)(b) of the Court Fees Act, as amended in Orissa, runs thus:

'In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens -- according to the value of the subject-matter: and such value shall be deemed to be--

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

Explanation I of the Orissa Amendment defines the word 'estate' as used in this paragraph. It says.

'The word 'estate' as used in this paragraph means any land subject to the payment of revenue, for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue.'

4. The assertion of the plaintiff that the disputed 89.83 acres have been separately assessed has not been disputed. The disputed land therefore constitutes a definite share of an estate. Section 7(v)(b) of the Court Fees Act has full application. The valuation given by the plaintiff for purpose of court-fee should be ten times the revenue payable.

Section 7(v)(d) of the Court Fees Act has no application to this case. If the disputed land would not have been a definite share of the estate and would not have been separately assessed, then alone the plaintiff would have been liable to value the suit for purpose of court-fee at the market value of the land.

The aforesaid conclusion would have been enough to dispose of the Civil Revision.

5. Mr. Panda however raised an Interesting question that the market value of the disputed land would have determined the jurisdictional value, and as such the learned Munsif. Boudh, may not be competent to decide the suit. This question necessitates an examination of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 8 of the Act runs thus:

'Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act. 1870, Section 7, paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x), Clause (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870 the value as determinate for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.'

By necessary implication in suits coming within the purview of Section 7 paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x) Clause (d) of the Court-fees Act, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purpose of jurisdiction shall ordinarily not be the same. This is why provisions have been made under Sections 3 and 9 of the Act for framing rules for determination of such value for the purpose of jurisdiction. In Orissa, no such rules have been framed by the State Government under Section 3 or by the High Court under Section 9. The position therefore is that in suits of the aforesaid nature it is open to the plaintiff to value the relief sought for, for purpose of jurisdiction. In this case the plaintiff had exactly given his own value. The valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction need not be the market value.

6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision isallowed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.


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