9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not binding on the plaintiff Company; (b) a decree of permanent injunction may also be granted in favor of the plaintiff Company and against the Defendants No. 1 and 2 and not to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff Company of plot No. 47, Block No. 9, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi or any part of the said plot; (c) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The valuation of this suit is contained in paragraph 4 which read thus: The value of the Suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is as under: 3. The caption of the plaintiff states it is a suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. 4. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of Court Fees and jurisdiction must be the same. As has already been seen the suit has been valued for the relief of Declaration of ₹ 77 lakhs. The Plaint must also Therefore be valued for ₹ 77 lakhs for the purposes of court fees and the appropriate court fees must be paid. 6. This question had arisen on the last date of hearing also but the contention of Bawa Shiv Charan Singh still remains that the Plaint has been correctly valued and that ad vaolerm court fees has not to be paid. The contention is rejected. Reference to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Krishna Chandra v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors. AIR1933All488 is of no assistance or applicability for the simple reason that the suit before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in which it has been laid down consistently, and over and over again, that where nothing more than a mere declaration is sought for, the suit is one for obtaining a declaratory decree and no ad valorem court-fee for such a relief can be charged. We may in this connection refer only to the recent cases of this Court in Radha Krishna v. Ram Narain (4); Brij Gopal v. Suraj Karan (5), Lakshmi Narain Rai v. Dip Narain Rai (6) and Muhammad Ismail v. Liyaqat Hussain (7). We accordingly think that on the principle of state decisis, if nothing else, this course of decisions should not now be disturbed. We accordingly hold that inasmuch as the plaintiff in this case merely asked for a declaration that the previous decree was not in any way bin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act along with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. This latter section provides that, where in any suits other than those referred to in Court-fees Act, Section 7, paras, 5, 6 and 9 and para. 10, Clause (d) court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Act, the value determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. In other words, so far as suits falling under Section 7, Sub-section (iv) of the Act are concerned, Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that where this occurs i.e. where the value is extremely high so as to oust jurisdiction of one Court to bring it before another, or is very low for the same reason, it is the bounden duty of the Court to go into this question and pass appropriate orders. Obviously the valuation of ₹ 77 lakhs bares reasonable relation to the market value of the suit property regardless of whether it is the lease hold or free hold right. Therefore I would accept the valuation of ₹ 77 lakhs. The effect is that while this Court may have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, appropriate court fees has not been paid. 9. My attention has also been drawn to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
