Skip to content


Star Trading and Investment Ltd. Vs. Ashutosh Mukherjee and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Cal627
AppellantStar Trading and Investment Ltd.
RespondentAshutosh Mukherjee and ors.
Cases Referred and Supply Ltd v. Mafijuddin Ahmed
Excerpt:
- .....reasonable standards for such valuation are laid down by appropriate rules framed under section 9, suits valuation act, it would not be possible for the court to exercise this power except in certain defined oases. it seems to be difficult to say that the value of the relief setting aside this decree can possibly be the total value of the joint property. there is really no objective standard of valuation at all, and it is almost impossible to say with any show of reason that the relief sought is worth any particular sum of money. as rules have not yet been made under section 9, suits valuation act, it is impossible to say that the relief has been undervalued by the plaintiff. we accordingly make the rule absolute and set aside the order of the learned subordinate judge calling upon the.....
Judgment:

Henderson, J.

1. This is a Rule calling upon the apposite party to show cause why an order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing the petitioner to pay additional court-fees should not be set aside. There is no difficulty in discovering the nature of the suit. The basis of the plaintiff's case is that a compromise decree in a partition suit was obtained by fraud. He therefore desired to get rid of it and to have the property partitioned by the Court. The plaint was drafted on these lines and the prayer is for a declaration and for partition. The suit accordingly comes within Section 7, Sub-section (iv)(c), Court-fees Act, being a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where consequential relief is prayed for. Under that sub-section the plaintiff is bound to pay ad valorem court-fee according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The opposite parties raised an objection that the court, fee paid was not sufficient and this was tried as a preliminary issue. The opposite parties adduced no evidence whatever in support of their case that the relief was undervalued. The Subordinate Judge merely took the value of the relief to be the total value of the joint property as it merged in the original partition suit. The question whether the plaintiff has an absolute right to value the relief at any sum he pleases or whether the Court may enquire into the matter and raise the valuation was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Narayangunj Central Co-operative sale and Supply Ltd v. Mafijuddin Ahmed : AIR1934Cal448 . The conclusion reached was that the Court has such power. Until however reasonable standards for such valuation are laid down by appropriate rules framed under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, it would not be possible for the Court to exercise this power except in certain defined oases. It seems to be difficult to say that the value of the relief setting aside this decree can possibly be the total value of the joint property. There is really no objective standard of valuation at all, and it is almost impossible to say with any show of reason that the relief sought is worth any particular sum of money. As rules have not yet been made under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, it is impossible to say that the relief has been undervalued by the plaintiff. We accordingly make the Rule absolute and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge calling upon the plaintiff to pay additional court, fees. The opposite party will pay the costs of this Rule to the petitioner. We assess the hearing fee at five gold mohurs.

Khundkar, J.

2. I agree.


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