Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3664 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Trilok Kumar Singh @ Triloki Singh Son Of Late Devendra Singh Resident Of Village - Sobhnathpur, P.S. - Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur 2. Balbir Kumar Singh @ Balbir Singh Son Of Late Devendra Singh Resident Of Village - Sobhnathpur, P.S. - Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur Versus 1. Himanshu Kumar Singh Son Of Late Satya Narayan Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Shovnathpur, P.S. Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur 2. Ajay Kumar Singh Son Of Late Sahedeo Singh Resident Of Village - Shovnathpur, P.S. Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha For the Respondent/s : Ms. Mallika Mazumdar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 07-08-2013 The petitioners in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by an order dated 30.10.2012 passed by learned Munsif Ist, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 77 of 2010, whereby the Court below has turned down the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the
Legal Reasoning
petitioners, who are defendants before the Court below. The preliminary objection relates to wrong valuation of the suit and on such basis lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of learned Munsif Bhagalpur, to try the suit. The Title Suit No. 77 of 2010 has been filed by the respondents for declaration of right of easement against the 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.3664 of 2013 (4) dt.07-08-2013 2 / 5 petitioners. The respondents/plaintiffs valued the suit as Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of Court fee as also for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioners, after issuance of notice appeared and raised preliminary objection as regards wrong valuation of the suit and also challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below, by filing a petition dated 20.1.2011. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners, with respect to statement made in paragraph 8 of the application that as per the report of the Sub-Registrar, Kahalgaon the market value of the suit land cannot be less than 3,32,000/-. According to him, the Court of Munsif Ist, Bhagalpur has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit as its correct value is not less than 3,32,000/-. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that in a suit for declaratory decree consequential relief falling under Section 7 (iv) ( c ) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation, both for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted unless it is arbitrary and unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstrable under valued. Reference in this regard has been made to Section 7 (iv) (c ) and (iv) ( e ) of 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.3664 of 2013 (4) dt.07-08-2013 3 / 5 the Court Fees Act, 1870, so as to contend that the plaintiff is fully entitled to value his suit and Court cannot interfere with the valuation given by the plaintiff unless it is arbitrary. It has been submitted, in view of Section 7 (iv) ( e) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 that it being a suit seeking declaration of right of easement, the amount of fee payable is according to the amount at which the relief sought was valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 refers to six kinds of suit which requires the plaintiff to state the amount at which he valued the relief sought. It has been submitted that the Court cannot compel to change the value of a suit, seeking declaration of right of easement. Reliance has been placed in this regard by learned counsel appearing for the respondents upon Supreme Court judgment reported in 2002 (1) PLJR ( SC) 268 ( Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh V. Paras Nath Singh). Reliance has also been placed upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1987 SC
Legal Reasoning
2085 (Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj) to contend that the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of his relief sought in the plaint and such valuation, both for the purpose of the Court has to be ordinarily accepted. From the impugned order it appears that the Court 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.3664 of 2013 (4) dt.07-08-2013 4 / 5 below refused to interfere with the valuation given by the plaintiff in the plaint as value given by the plaintiff was not found to be arbitrary. The Court below has relied upon Ext. 1 to come to a conclusion that the valuation cannot be said to be arbitrary. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in the present case is that the impugned order does not show application of mind and does not assign any reason as to how it came to a conclusion that the valuation of the suit by the plaintiff was not arbitrary. It has been submitted that in the impugned order the Court below has not mentioned as to what was there in Ext.1 so as to come to a finding that valuation of the suit cannot be said to be arbitrary. I do not find force in such submission for two reasons; firstly from the impugned order it appears that the Court below has considered in detail the rival contentions in the background of the statutory provisions as well as the judgment of this Court and Supreme Court on this point. Secondly, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that finding of the Court below is contrary to or at variance with the contents of said Ext.1. This is to be noted that Ext.1 is the sale deed as would appear from paragraph 3 of the impugned order. In my view, the impugned order does not require any 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.3664 of 2013 (4) dt.07-08-2013 5 / 5 interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Arun Kumar/-