9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants filed an application wherein a preliminary objection was raised as to the valuation of the suit. It was contended by them that the relief sought for in the suit had been grossly undervalued and the Court should reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the CPC. The learned Single Judge of the High Court overruled the said preliminary objection and held that the suit was not undervalued. On appeal by the appellants, a Division Bench of the High Court took the same view as that of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench placed reliance upon and followed a Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Smt. Sheila Devi and Ors. v. Shri Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors. where it has been observed, inter alia, that paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any value that he likes on the relief he seeks, subject, however, to any rule made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiffs valuation. The Division Bench felt itself bound by the said Full Bench decision and, accordingly, it dismissed the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s coming under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. It has already been noticed that under Rule 4(i) of the Punjab High Court Rules, the value of suit for accounts for purposes of court fee will be as determined by the Court Fees Act, which means that the valuation of the relief will have to be made by the plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act. 8. In a suit for accounts it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to value the relief correctly. So long as the account is not taken, the plaintiff cannot say what amount, if at all, would be found due to him on such accounting. The plaintiff may think that a huge amount would be found due to him, but upon actual accounting it may be found that nothing is due to the plaintiff. A suit for accounts is filed with the fond hope that on accounting a substantial amount would be found due to the plaintiff. But the relief cannot be valued on such hope, surmise or conjecture. 9. In this connection, we may refer to the provision of Order VII, Rule II(b) of the CPC, which provides, inter alia, that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purposes of court fees. The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness. Take for instance the claim for partition where the plaintiff seeks to enforce his right to share in any property on the ground that is joint family property. The basis of the claim is that the property in respect of which a share is claimed is joint family property. In other words, it is property in which the plaintiff has an undivided share. What the plaintiff purports to do by making a claim for partition is to ask the court to give him certain specified properties separately and absolutely on his own account for his share in lieu of his undivided share in the whole property. Now it would be clear that the conversion of the plaintiffs alleged undivided share in the joint family property into his separate share cannot be easily valued in terms of rupees with any precision or definiteness. That is why legislature has left it to the option of the plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of court fees. It really means that in suits falling und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Anr., AIR1939Pat572 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 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. We may now refer to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur v. Radhashyam Marwari and Ors., AIR1940Cal482 . But, before we refer to the decision, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s strenuously urged that, in the instant case, the respondent has valued the suit most arbitrarily according to her whims. It is submitted by him that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff cannot put an arbitrary valuation on the relief claimed by him. Much reliance has been placed by him on a few decisions of this Court which will be referred to presently. 18. In Meenaakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, [1979]3SCR385 this Court made the following observation: The plaintiff is required to state the amount at which he values the relief sought. In suits for accounts it is not possible for the plaintiff to estimate correctly the amount which he may be entitled to for, as in the present case, when the plaintiff asks for accounting regarding the management by a power of attorney agent, he might not know the state of affairs of the defendant's management and the amount to which he would be entitled to on accounting. But it is necessary that the amount at which he values the relief sought for should be a reasonable estimate. 19. That observation has been made by this Court with reference to the special provision, namely, Section 35(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Majid and Ors., [1988]3SCR507 . It was also a suit for accounts and came under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act. It has been observed as follows: It is true that in a suit for accounts the correct amount payable by one party to the other can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of the claim at the inception of the suit. The plaintiff is, therefore, allowed to give his own tentative valuation. Ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chose, but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard. In such a case it is not only open to the Court but its duty to reject such a valuation. The cases of some of the High Courts which have taken a different view must be held to be incorrectly decided. 23. We are also of the view that the plaintiff cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials and/or objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint. These materials o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
