1 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

2024:CGHC:49305

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

[Judgment reserved on : 11.12.2024]

[Judgment delivered on: 13.12.2024]

In

MISC. APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2019

(Arising out of Judgment dated 27.7.2019 passed by District

Judge, Raigarh in Regular Civil Appeal No.31 of 2016)

1(a)Smt. Kaveri Patel, Wd/o Jivdhan Patel, aged about 60

years,

1(b) Devendra Patel, S/o Late Jivdhan Patel, aged about 38

years,

1(c) Omprakash Patel, S/o Late Jivdhan Patel, aged about

33 years,

All the above 1(a) to 1(c) are residents of Tikrapara,

Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

1(d) Smt. Meena Patel, D/o Late Jivdhan Patel, aged about

35 years, R/o Village Dhabra, Tahsil Dhabra, District

Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

Defendants No.1(a) to 1(d)

Versus

1(a)Gandharv Sen Patel, S/o Late Daulatram Patel, aged

about 52 years,

1(b) Smt. Mathura Patel, Wd/o Late Daulatram Patel, aged

about 72 years,

1(c)Hemant Patel, S/o Late Daulatram Patel, aged about

49 years,

All the above 1(a) to 1(c) are residents of Village

Sangitarai, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

2 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

1(d)Smt. Smt. Kalavati Patel, D/o Late Daulatram Patel,

aged about 42 years, R/o Village Bhedikona, Tahsil

Dhabra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2(a)Ravibhushan Patel, S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Patel, aged

about 58 years, R/o Dharogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil

and District Raigarh (C.G.)

2(b)Smt. Chandrakala Nayak, D/o Late Kanhaiyalal, aged

about 65 Years, R/o Village Gindola, Tahsil Kharsiya,

District Raigarh (C.G.)

2(c) Bhagwati Prasad Patel, S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Patel,

aged about 56 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil

and District Raigarh (C.G.)

2(d)Smt. Satyabhama Patel, W/o Mohanlal, aged about

50 years, D/o Late Kanhaiyalal Patel, R/o Village

Kosamda, Tahsil Pussaur, District Raigarh (C.G.)

2(e)Smt. Nishikant Patel, W/o Kaushal Prasad Patel, aged

about 45 years, D/o Late Kanhaiyalal Patel, R/o

Village Kotmi, Tahsil Dhabra, District Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.)

3.Vijay Shankar Patel, S/o Baldau Singh Patel, aged

about 70 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil and

District Raigarh (C.G.)

4(a) Smt. Padmavati Patel, Wd/o Late Saligram Patel, aged

about 70 years,

4(b) Kedar Patel, S/o Late Saligram Patel, aged about 45

years,

Both the above 4(a) & 4(b) are R/o Village Sangitarai,

Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

4(c) Smt. Madhuri Patel, D/o Late Saligram Patel, aged

about 48 years, W/o Lokendra Prasad Patel, R/o

Village Palgada, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh

(C.G.)

4(d) Smt. Usha Patel, D/o Late Saligram Patel, aged about

46 years, W/o Babulal Patel, R/o Village Indira Nagar,

Puchapara, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

5.Purshottam Patel, S/o Late Sahebram Patel, aged

about 55 years, R/o Tikrapara, Darogapara, Raigarh,

Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

3 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

6(a) Leena Patel, W/o Deepak Patel, aged about 30 years,

R/o Village Saraipali, Post Saraypali (C.G.)

6(b) Sourabh Patel, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Patel, aged

about 25 years, R/o Darogapara, Mastagali, Ward

No.15, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

6(c) Champa Patel, W/o Bhuneshwar Patel, aged about 58

years, R/o Village Darogapara, Mastagali, Ward

No.15, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

7(a) Naresh Agrawal, S/o Netram Agrawal, aged about 58

years,

7(b) Suresh Agrawal, S/o Netram Agrawal, aged about 61

years,

Both 7(a) & 7(b) are R/o Gaurishanker Mandir Road,

Nayaganj, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

8. Shoukilal, S/o Late Holoram, aged about 50 years,

R/o Village Bendrachuha, Raigarh (C.G.)

9(a) Ramkumar Patel, S/o Late Khushiram Patel, R/o

Village Sangitarai, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

9(b)Rajendra Patel, S/o Late Khushiram Patel, R/o

Deendayal Colony, Phase-2, Chote Atarmuda,

Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

9(c) Mathura Bai, Wd/o Late Khushiram Patel, aged about

70 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil & District

Raigarh (C.G.)

10.Nanki Dau alias Keshav Prasad Patel, S/o Chandan

Singh Patel, aged about 60 years, R/o Village

Sangitarai, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

11. Babulal Patel, S/o Chakradhar Singh Patel, aged

about 69 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil &

District Raigarh (C.G.)

12(a)Brajesh Kumar Patel, S/o Late Kalesh Ram Patel,

aged about 35 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil &

District Raigarh (C.G.)

12(b)Khagesh Kumar Patel, S/o Late Kalesh Ram Patel,

aged about 30 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil &

District Raigarh (C.G.)

12(c)Smt. Vidyamati Patel, Wd/o Kalesh Ram, aged about

60 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil & District

Raigarh (C.G.)

4 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

13(a)Anjani Patel, Wd/o Late Ramchandra Patel, aged

about 60 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Post

Chhatamura, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

13(b)Prahlad Patel, S/o Late Ramchandra Patel, aged

about 43 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Post

Chhatamura, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

13(c)Krishna Patel, S/o Late Ramchandra Patel, aged

about 40 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Post

Chhatamura, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

14.Girdhari, S/o Chote Dau Patel, aged about 69 years,

R/o Village Sangitarai, Tahsil & District Raigarh

(C.G.)

15(a)Dwarka Patel, S/o Late Gopichand Patel, aged about

48 years, R/o Village Sangitarai, Post Chhatamura,

Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

15(b)Shanti Patel, W/o Khemnidhi Patel, aged about 55

years, R/o Village Loharsingh, Kodatarai, Tahsil &

District Raigarh (C.G.)

15(c)Indu Patel, W/o Shri Ram Prasad Patel, aged about

42 years, R/o Kanshiram Chowk, Kabir Chowk,

Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.)

15(d)Basanti Patel, W/o Shri Ram Patel, aged about 40

years, R/o Village Bawlikunwa, Raigarh, Tahsil &

District Raigarh (C.G.)

15(e)Malti Patel, D/o Late Gopichand Patel, aged about 45

years, Village Sangitarai, Raigarh, Tahsil & District

Raigarh (C.G.)

15(f)Nandai Patel, Wd/o Late Gopichand Patel, aged about

60 years, Village Sangitarai, Post Chhatamura, Tahsil

& District Raigarh (C.G.)

16. Sundarlal Patel, S/o Late Neelkant Patel, aged about

70 years,

17. Chandrabhan Patel, S/o Late Neelkant Patel, aged

about 65 years,

Both 16 & 17 above are R/o Village Padigaon, Tahsil

Pussaur, District Raigarh (C.G.)

18. Smt. Fulkuwar Patel, D/o Neelkant Patel, aged about

60 years, R/o Village Tadola, Tahsil Pussaur, District

Raigarh (C.G.)

5 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

19.State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, District

Raigarh (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants/ :- Mr. Hari Agrawal,

Defendants No.1(a),1(b), Advocate.

1(c) & 1(d)

For Respondents/ :-Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha,

Plaintiffs No.1(a),1(c), Advocate.

2(a), 2(c), 3 and 4(b)

For Respondent/State:-Mr. Sharad Mishra,

Panel Lawyer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Single Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C A V Judgment

1.The present Misc. Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’)

was admitted for hearing by formulating the following

substantial question of law for consideration:-

“Whether the First Appellate Court is justified

in setting aside the order passed by the Trial

Court and allowing the appeal filed by the

respondents/plaintiffs by recording a finding

which is perverse and contrary to well settled

law in this regard?”

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall

be referred to in terms of their rank and status before

the Trial Court.

3.The aforesaid question of law arises on the following

factual backdrop of the case:-

6 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

a)On 17.8.1992, the original Defendants No.6 to 20

(Khusiram and others) had sold a piece of land

situated at Khasra Nos. 21 & 30/1 in favour of

the original Defendants No.1 to 3 (Late Jivdhan

Patel, Purushottam Patel and Late

Bhubaneshwar Patel) for a sale consideration of

Rs.52,000/-. On the same day itself, the said

Defendants No.6 to 20 had also sold a piece of

land situated at Khasra Nos. 21 & 30/4 in favour

of the original Defendant No.4 (Late Smt. Harbai

Devi) for a sale consideration of Rs.52,000/-.

Subsequently, on 24.10.1992, the Defendants

No.6 to 20 again sold a portion of the land

situated at Khasra No.16/1 in favour of the

original Defendant No.5 (Late Holoram) for a sale

consideration of Rs.5000/-.

b)On 2.12.1992, the original Plaintiffs (Late

Daulatram, Late Kanhaiyalal, Vijay Shanker and

Salikram) instituted a civil suit primarily averring

that the Plaintiffs and Defendants No.6 to 20 are

family members and the suit property fell into

the share of the Plaintiffs, but the Defendants

have illegally sold the suit property and thus

7 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

prayed for a declaration of the three sale deeds,

dated 17.8.1992, 17.8.1992 and 24.10.1992, to

be illegal and null & void and also sought for

confirmation of possession and if possession is

not found then, in alternative, the possession of

the suit property be restored in favour of the

Plaintiffs. However, for the purpose of court fees,

the Plaintiffs valued their suit affixing the court

fees as under:-

S.N. Description Valuation/

Court Fees

1.Valuation of declaration/

cancellation of three sale deeds = Rs.900/-

Fixed court fees affixed = Rs.90/-

2.Valuation for restoration of

possession = Rs.64/-

(allegedly valued to be 20 times

of the land revenue)

Court fees affixed = Rs.07/-

3.Valuation for the purpose of

permanent injunction = Rs.300/-

Fixed court fees affixed = Rs.30/-

Valuation for the purpose of

Pecuniary jurisdiction = Rs.900/-

Rs.64/-

Rs.300/-

Rs.1264/-

Court fees paid = Rs.90/-

Rs.07/-

Rs.30/-

Rs.127/-

c)On 1.3.1993, the original Defendants No.1 to 4

filed an application under Section 151 of CPC

8 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground

that the suit does not fall within the jurisdiction

of the Trial Court i.e. Second Civil Judge, Class-

II, Raigarh.

d)Subsequently, on 22.10.2008, eight issues were

framed by the Trial Court for consideration.

However, on 13.1.2016, considering the

objections and pleadings of the parties, two

additional issues were framed by the Trial Court,

out of which the Issue No.9 which holds

“Whether this Court has the pecuniary

jurisdiction to hear and try the suit”, was ordered

by the Trial Court to be treated and considered

as a Preliminary Issue.

e)On 29.1.2016, after hearing the arguments of the

parties on the Preliminary Issue No.9, the Trial

Court found that the valuation of the suit was

undervalued and since the relief of possession

was also sought for, the ad-valorem court fees

which ought to have been paid was not found to

be paid by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Trial

Court, in exercise of powers conferred upon it

under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC, granted time to

9 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

the Plaintiffs to correct the valuation and pay the

ad-valorem court fees, fixing the matter for

30.1.2016.

f)However, on 30.1.2016, the Plaintiffs filed a

review petition under Section 114 read with

Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for review of the Order

dated 29.1.2016, which was dismissed by the

Trial Court by order dated 2.2.2016. Ultimately,

for non-compliance of the order dated 29.1.2016,

the Trial Court by its Judgment/Order dated

2.2.2016 dismissed the civil suit in view of Order

7 Rule 11 of CPC.

g)Plaintiffs assailed the Judgment/Order dated

2.2.2016 passed by the Trial Court by filing

Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2016 under Section

96 of CPC before the First Appellate Court i.e.

District Judge, Raigarh who, however, by its

Judgment/Order dated 27.7.2019, set-aside the

Order dated 2.2.2016 and remitted the matter

back to the Trial Court for consideration of the

suit on merits.

h)Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the

Judgment/Order dated 27.7.2019 passed by the

10 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

First Appellate Court, the Defendants No.1(a),

1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) have preferred the present

Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC

questioning the impugned Judgment/Order on

the ground that the First Appellate Court is

absolutely unjustified in reversing the well

merited Order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Trial

Court dismissing the civil suit in view of Order 7

Rule 11 of CPC.

4.Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for

Appellants/Defendants No.1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d),

would submit that the suit is admittedly covered

under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as

the Plaintiffs are also seeking for the relief of

confirmation/recovery of possession, in light of the

decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter

of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir

Singh and Others

1

. He would further submit that for

the purpose of valuation, the Suit Valuation Act, 1887

and the Rules framed thereunder nowhere provide for

any statutory scheme for making a valuation of the

property for the purpose of jurisdiction for which a

1 (2010) 12 SCC 112

11 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

declaration has been sought. Though the Plaintiffs’

valuation of the plaint has to be accepted ordinarily,

but in the instant case the suit is demonstratively

undervalued. Plaintiffs should have correctly taken

the value of the sale deeds at Rs.1,09,000/- which

they have opted not to correct/amend. Therefore, the

Trial Court has rightly held the valuation of the suit to

be Rs.1,09,000/- for sale considerations for the

purpose of jurisdiction. In this regard, he would rely

upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in

the matters of Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha

Krishna Maharaj

2

and M/s Commercial Aviation

and Travel Co. & Ors. v. Vimla Pannalal

3

and also

on the decision of the Madras High Court in the

matter of Vasireddi Veremma v. Marupudi

Butchiah

4

in which guidelines have been issued for

determination of valuation for the purpose of

jurisdiction. He would thus submit that the finding

recorded by the Trial Court is in accordance with law

and it ought not to have been turned down by the

First Appellate Court without following the principles

of law as laid down in the aforesaid decisions and as

2 (1987) 4 SCC 69

3 (1988) 3 SCC 423

4 (1926) SCC OnLine Mad 261

12 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

such the impugned Judgment/Order passed by the

First Appellate Court is liable to set-aside.

5.Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing

for Respondents/Plaintiffs No.1(a), 1(c), 2(a), 2(c), 3

and 4(b), would submit that the Judgment/Order

passed by First Appellate Court is absolutely justified

and is in accordance with law and as such the

present appeal deserves to be dismissed. He would

rely upon the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High

Court rendered in the matters of Santosh Chandra &

Ors. v. Smt. Gyansundarbai & Ors.

5

, Ram Prasad

Agrawal & Anr. v. Bhagwandas

6

, Ashish v.

Nageshwar & Ors.

7

and the decision of the Orissa

High Court in the matter of Indrajit Behera & Anr. v.

Bhaja Meher & Anr.

8

and also the decision of this

High Court in the matter of Smt. Neelam Dagla v.

Sarwan Gond & Anr.

9

.

6.I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the

parties, considered their rival submissions and also

perused the record of the case with utmost care and

circumspection.

5 AIR 1971 MP 1

6 2003 (1) MPHT 36

7 2017 (3) MPLJ 439

8 1968 SCC OnLine Ori 64

9 FA No. 557/2018, decided on 20.6.2019.

13 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

7.A careful perusal of paragraphs 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c)

of the plaint would show that three sale deeds were

executed by the original Defendants No.6 to 20 for a

sale consideration of Rs.52,000/-, Rs.52,000/- and

Rs.5000/- in favour of the original Defendants No.1 to

5 respectively, of which total valuation was done at

Rs.1,09,000/-. In all these three sale deeds, since the

Plaintiffs were not parties, in light of the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh (supra),

the Plaintiffs were not required to seek cancellation of

the sale deeds. If the Plaintiffs being non-executants

and not being in possession, if they seek not only a

declaration that the sale deeds are invalid but also the

consequential relief of possession, they are required to

pay ad-valorem court fees as provided under Section

7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, as observed in

paragraph-7 in Suhrid Singh (supra) which states as

under:-

“7. Where the executant of a deed

wants it to be annulled, he has to

seek cancellation of the deed. But

if a non-executant seeks annulment

of a deed, he has to seek a

declaration that the deed is

invalid, or non-est, or illegal or

that it is not binding on him. The

difference between a prayer for

14 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

cancellation and declaration in

regard to a deed of

transfer/conveyance, can be

brought out by the following

illustration relating to `A' and

`B' -- two brothers. `A' executes

a sale deed in favour of `C'.

Subsequently `A' wants to avoid

the sale. `A' has to sue for

cancellation of the deed. On the

other hand, if `B', who is not the

executant of the deed, wants to

avoid it, he has to sue for a

declaration that the deed executed

by `A' is invalid/void and non-

est/ illegal and he is not bound

by it. In essence both may be

suing to have the deed set aside

or declared as non-binding. But

the form is different and court

fee is also different. If `A', the

executant of the deed, seeks

cancellation of the deed, he has

to pay ad-valorem court fee on the

consideration stated in the sale

deed. If `B', who is a non-

executant, is in possession and

sues for a declaration that the

deed is null or void and does not

bind him or his share, he has to

merely pay a fixed court fee of

Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of

Second Schedule of the Act . But if

`B', a non- executant, is not in

possession, and he seeks not only

a declaration that the sale deed

is invalid, but also the

consequential relief of

possession, he has to pay an ad-

valorem court fee as provided

under Section 7(iv)(c) of the

Act.”

8.The Preliminary Issue that was framed by the Trial

Court under Issue No.9 reads thus:-

15 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

“Whether this Court has the

pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and

try the suit”

9.For ready reference, paragraph-15 of the plaint is also

being reproduced herein:-

“15(v);g fd U;k;ky; ‘kqYd gsrq nkok dk ewY;

rhuksa c;ukek oknhx.k ds fo:) ‘kwU; ,oa voS/k ?kksf”kr

djkus ckor~ rhu rhu lkS :i;s rFkk dqy 900 : (ukS

lkS :i;ss) dk j[kk x;k gS ftl ij 90: (uCcs :i;k)

dk fuf’pr U;k;’kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gSA

15(c);g fd vxj oknhx.k dk dCtk oknxzLr

tehuksa ij u ik;k tk; rks dCtk okil fnykus ckor~

yxku ds 20 xquk ds vk/kkj ij dqy 64 :i;s ds ewY;

j[kk x;k gS ftl ij dqy 7 :i;s (lkr :i;ss) dk

jkT; ‘kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gSA

15(l);g fd LFkk;h fu”ks/kkKk ckor~ nkok dk ewY;

300 :i;s (rhu lkS :i;ss) j[kk x;k gS ftl ij jkT;

‘kqYd 30 :i;s (rhl :i;s) vnk fd;k x;k gSA”

10.In view of the aforesaid, it is quite vivid that for

valuation for declaration/cancellation of three sale

deeds, the Plaintiffs had valued the suits at Rs.900/-

and paid the fixed court fess of Rs.90/-; for

restoration of possession of the suit property, 20

times of the land revenue had been valued at Rs.64/-

on which court fees of Rs.7/- was paid and further for

the purpose of permanent injunction, the valuation

was done at Rs.300/- on which fixed court fees of

Rs.30/- was paid, thereby total Rs.1264/- was paid

16 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

for the valuation of pecuniary jurisdiction and total

Rs.127/- was paid as court fess.

11.Defendants No.1 to 4 had objected to the aforesaid

valuation which was accepted by the Trial Court

holding that the suit should have been valued at

Rs.1,09,000/- by Order dated 29.1.2016, the

operative part of which is being reproduced herein

under:-

“vr% vkns’k 7 fu;e 11([k)O;ogkj izfd;k lafgrk ds

rgr oknhx.k dks funZsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh

frfFk ij iz’uk/khu izdj.k esa pqukSrh fn;s x, fodz;

i=ksa ds dqYk ewY; 109000@& vuqlkj okn dk Bhd

ewY;kadu djsa] ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ,slk djus esa

vlQy jgus ij vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA

izdj.k vkns’k ds ikyu gsrq fnukad 30-01-2016A”

12.It is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme

Court rendered in the matters of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp.

Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan

Chettiar

10

and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v.

Venkatachalam Chettiar

11

, that in a suit for

declaration with consequential relief falling under

Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is

free to make his own valuation of the reliefs sought in

the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of

court-fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily

10AIR 1958 SC 245

11(1980) 1 SCC 616

17 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the

Court on a consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the case that the valuation is

arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been

demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine

the valuation and can revise the same. [See: Tara

Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj

2

(Para 4)]

13.Now, the question is, as noticed herein-above, neither

the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 nor the Rules framed

thereunder provide for any statutory scheme for the

purpose of making a valuation of the property to

determine the jurisdiction for which a declaration has

been sought. In this regard, the decision of the

Madras High Court in the matter of Vasireddi

Veremma v. Marupudi Butchiah

4

may be noticed

herein, in which, relying upon the various decisions

governing the field, it has been held that where no

special method of valuation has been provided by

statute, the general principles deducible for valuation

for purposes of jurisdiction would apply:-

(1)Where the subject matter of a suit is wholly

unrelated to anything which can be readily, stated in

definite money terms, then the plaintiff, having to put

some money value for the purpose of jurisdiction,

must put a more or less arbitrary value, and, there

18 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

being no factors in the case from which the Court can

say his valuation is wrong or dishonest the Court will

accept that valuation, e.g.., suit for restitution of

conjugal rights, suit for a declaration that plaintiff is a

member of a charity committee, etc.

(2) Where the subject-matter is so related to things

which have a real money value that the relief asked

for will affect these, then the value of the suit for the

purpose of jurisdiction is to be taken as the market

value of the property affected, e.g., a suit for a

declaration of fishery rights, a suit to set-aside an

award or a suit regarding liability to pay royalty.

But the market value must be the market value of the

whole of the property affected and not merely the

plaintiff's share.

14.Similarly, in the matter of M/s Commercial Aviation

and Travel Co. & Ors. v. Vimla Pannalal

3

, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that where

the objective standards of valuation is available, the

plaintiff cannot be permitted to put an arbitrary

valuation de hors such objective standards and

materials, and observed in paragraph-16 as under:-

“16.Thus, where there are objective

standards of valuation or, in other

words, the plaintiff or the Court can

reasonably value the relief correctly

on certain definite and positive

materials, the plaintiff will not be

permitted to put an arbitrary valuation

de hors such objective standards or

materials.”

In paragraphs 13 & 14 it has also been observed as

follows:-

19 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

“13. But, there may be cases under

section 7(iv) where certain positive

objective standard may be available for

the purpose of determination of the

valuation of the relief. If there be

materials or objective standards for

the valuation of the relief, and yet

the plaintiff ignores the same and puts

an arbitrary valuation, the Court, in

our opinion, is entitled to interfere

under order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code

of Civil Procedure . for the Court will

be in a Position to determine the

correct valuation with reference to the

objective standards or materials

available to it. In Urmilabala Biswas

v. Binapani Biswas & ors., AIR 1938

Cal 161 a suit was instituted for

declaration of title to Provident Fund

money amounting to a definite sum with

a prayer for injunction restraining the

defendant from withdrawing the said

money. It was held that there was no

real distinction between the right to

recover money and the right to that

money itself, and that the relief

should have been valued at the

Provident Fund amount to which title

was claimed by the Plaintiff. Thus, it

appears that although in that case the

suit was one under section 7(iv)(c) of

the Court Fees Act, there was an

objective standard which would enable

the plaintiff and the Court too to

value the relief correctly and, in such

a case, the Court would be competent to

direct the plaintiff to value the

relief accordingly.

14.In Kishori Lal Marwari v. Kumar

Chandra Narain Deo and another, AIR

1939 Patna 572 a question arose as to

the valuation of a suit for injunction

restraining a decree- holder from

executing his decree on the ground that

the decree was collusive and obtained

by fraud and, therefore, void and

incapable of execution. It was held by

the Patna High Court that the plaintiff

must value his suit according to the

20 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

amount of decree and must pay ad

valorem court fee on such amount. In

this case also, there was a positive

objective standard for the valuation of

the suit.”

15.Coming to the facts of the case, in view of the

principles of law laid down in the above-stated

decisions, it is quite clear that though in a suit for a

declaration with consequential relief of confirmation/

recovery of possession falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of

the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is free to make his

own estimation of the relief(s) sought in the plaint and

such valuation both for the purposes of court-fee and

jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted, but in the

case where the Court finds that valuation is arbitrary

or apparently unreasonable and the plaint is

demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine

the valuation and revise the same. In the instant case,

the objective materials are available for the purpose of

valuation of the relief(s) sought in the plaint, as the

Plaintiffs have sought for avoidance of the three sale

deeds executed for a sale consideration of

Rs.52,000/-, Rs.52,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, totaling to

Rs.1,09,000/- and which the Plaintiffs ought to have

valued for the relief(s) sought, for the purpose of

21 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

valuation of the suit, otherwise it would be the case of

valuation of the plaint to be arbitrary and

demonstratively undervalued, which the Trial Court

noticed. Though objective materials are available to

value the relief(s) sought in the plaint, the Plaintiffs

put in the valuation of suit for declaration, possession

and permanent injunction as Rs.900/- there being no

basis to value the same. In that view of the matter,

the Trial Court has rightly held that the valuation of

the suit was arbitrary and it ought to have been

Rs.1,09,000/- as per value of the three sale deeds

sought to be declared as illegal and void and further

rightly held that the Plaintiffs’ suit is undervalued and

despite the Plaintiffs having been granted time to

correct/amend the valuation, the Plaintiffs did not

value the suit properly and did not pay the ad-

valorem court fees and, accordingly, the Trial Court

proceeded to dismiss the suit by its Judgment/Order

dated 2.2.2016.

16.The First Appellate Court interfered with the said

Judgment/Order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Trial

Court on the ground that since the suit is governed by

Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, valuation of the

22 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

suit should be 15 times of the land revenue, ignoring

the fact that the suit squarely falls under Section 7(iv)

of the Court Fees Act and the fixed court fees under

Article 17 of Schedule 2 would not be applicable as

the Plaintiffs have specifically sought for confirmation

of possession and, in alternative, restoration of the

possession of the suit property in their favour and as

per Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, in suits other

than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, Section

7, paragraphs v, vi and ix and paragraph x, clause (d),

court fees are payable ad-valorem under the Court

Fees Act and the value as determinable for the

computation of the court fees and the value for the

purpose of the jurisdiction would be the same. In that

view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that

the First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in

reversing the Judgment/Order dated 2.2.2016 passed

by the Trial Court dismissing the suit in exercise of

powers under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC.

17.The judgments cited by learned Counsel for the

Respondents/Plaintiffs are quite distinguishable on

their own facts and therefore are not applicable to the

facts of the present case.

23 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

18.Accordingly, the Misc. Appeal is partly allowed. The

Judgment/Order dated 27.7.2019 passed by the First

Appellate Court is set-aside. The Judgment/Order

dated 29.1.2016 passed by the Trial Court is affirmed.

However, the Trial Court’s order dated 2.2.2016

dismissing the Civil Suit is not restored/affirmed, as

the Trial Court ought to have given sufficient time to

the Plaintiffs to make proper valuation and take

consequential steps of payment of court fees etc., as

within three days of the passing of the Order dated

29.1.2016 the Civil Suit was dismissed by the Trial

Court in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(b)

of CPC.

19.Plaintiffs are granted time up to 17.1.2025 to make

proper valuation as per the Order dated 29.1.2016 of

the Trial Court. However, if the said compliance is not

done by 17.1.2025, the Trial Court would be at liberty

to pass fresh orders under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC.

20.Before parting with the record, it is also pertinent to

mention that the original Civil Suit was instituted on

2.12.1992 and is pending consideration for 32 years.

In that view of the matter, if the proper valuation of

the suit as per the Order dated 29.1.2016 of the Trial

24 / 24

(M.A. No. 88 of 2019)

Court is made and further consequential steps are

taken, the Trial Court will do well in expediting the

trial of the Civil Suit and dispose of the same as

expeditiously as possible. Both the parties will

cooperate in disposal of the suit looking to its long

pendency from last 32 years.

21.The parties shall bear their own cost(s).

22.Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court

on 23.12.2024 positively.

23.Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to

immediately send a true copy of this judgment

through e-mail to the concerned Trial Court and the

original record of the case along with the true copy of

this judgement be also transmitted to the Trial Court

by a special messenger, for necessary compliance at

the earliest, looking to the long pendency of the

matter for last 32 years and also for the reason that it

may reach before the Trial Court by 23.12.2024 on

which date parties have been directed to appear

before the Trial Court.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

Judge

sharad