Skip to content


Ramzan Rather and ors. Vs. Khaliq Bhat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtJammu and Kashmir High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSuit No. 50 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1981J& K84
ActsJammu and Kashmir Court-fees Act, 1977 - Section 7
AppellantRamzan Rather and ors.
RespondentKhaliq Bhat and ors.
Appellant Advocate Z.A. Shah, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.N. Bhat, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....value relief for court-fees that will determine the valuation for jurisdiction. since, the computation of court-fees in suits falling under section 7(iv)(c) of the court-fees act, depends upon the value that the plaintiffs make in respect of their claims, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to exercise their option and value the claim for purpose of court-fee which would also determine the value for purpose of jurisdiction. undoubtedly the two values i. e. the value for purpose of court-fees and valuation for purpose of jurisdiction must be the same in a case like the present one.6. in view of what has been said above, it must be held that the value for purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction has not been properly fixed. issue no. 10 is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.S. Anand, J.

1. At this stage, this Court is called upon to decide Issue No. 10 which reads as under:--

'Whether the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction has been fixed wrongly, if so what is the correct valuation? OPD'

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the documents executed by late Gani Rather, father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 4 on 15-6-1966 and 17-12-1967 are null and void in the eye of law and for further declaration that the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 are the owners of the suit land covered by survey Nos. 3545/2172 and for possession of the said land. Para 12 of the plaint reads as follows:

'That the suit value for the purpose of declaration is fixed at 50,000/- on which a court-fee of Rs. 12.50 is paid and for the possession is fixed at Rs. 100/- on which a court-fee of Rs. 9.50 is paid.'

3. Mr. K. N. Bhat, learned counsel for contesting defendant No. 1, has submitted that the court-fee has not been correctly paid on the plaint by the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have not declared the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in para 12. It is submitted that it was not open to the plaintiffs to put forth separate valuation for the reliefs of declaration and possession because both the reliefs are inter-dependent and not independent of each other. Argues Mr. Bhat, that the suit of the plaintiffs is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and, therefore, the plaintiffs must pay ad valorem court-fee on the consolidated amount of the reliefs sought.

4. Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned counsel for the plaintiffs after arguing that the reliefs of declaration and possession claimed by the plaintiffs are independant of each other, submitted that even if the suit is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act,the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited and would have to be given an opportunity to state the amount on which they would like to value the reliefs sought by them and amend the valuation accordingly.

5. That the question of court-fee is to be decided with reference to the averments made in the plaint is no longer a moot point. Whether or not a case is governed under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, the vital test is whether the reliefs asked for by the plaintiffs are inter-dependent i. e. the consequential relief flows directly from the declaration given or independant of each other. In case the reliefs are inter-dependent then the plaintiffs must give consolidated valuation for the two reliefs but in case the reliefs are independant of each other, they are not required to do so. A perusal of the plaint in the instant case reveals that the reliefs of possession claimed by the plaintiffs flow directly from the relief of declaration sought for by them and therefore it is a consequential relief within the meaning of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. The plaintiffs have not given the consolidated valuation of the reliefs. As a matter of fact in para 12 of the plaint (Supra) the plaintiffs have not declared the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction at all. It is open to the plaintiffs to value the claim at any amount that they wish and it is the amount at which they value relief for court-fees that will determine the valuation for jurisdiction. Since, the computation of court-fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, depends upon the value that the plaintiffs make in respect of their claims, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to exercise their option and value the claim for purpose of court-fee which would also determine the value for purpose of jurisdiction. Undoubtedly the two values i. e. the value for purpose of Court-fees and valuation for purpose of jurisdiction must be the same in a case like the present one.

6. In view of what has been said above, it must be held that the value for purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction has not been properly fixed. Issue No. 10 is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. I would, however, like to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to state the amount at which they would like to value the reliefs sought by them as required by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and amend the valuation already declared by them within a period of threeweeks. Put up for further proceedings immediately after the expiry of three weeks.


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