Civil Revision Application No. 4 of 2008 · Bombay High Court

The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Initially, the suit was valued at Rs.1030/-. The present applicant thereafter filed his objection to the jurisdiction on the ground that the suit is not properly valued. It was the contention of the applicant that if the valuation is as per the market rate in accordance with Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court 2 Fees Act, 1959, the valuation of the suit would be more than rupees one lakh and as such the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. An application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. It appears that there after the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the suit so as to enhance the valuation of the suit. The said amendment was allowed. Subsequently, after amendment was carried out to the plaint, the learned trial Court coming to the conclusion that after amendment, the suit is properly valued, rejected both the applications, filed by the present applicant.

Hence, the present CRA. Shri S.M. Bhangde, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the suit has to be valued in accordance with the market price of the property inasmuch the plaintiff has claimed declaration for ownership of the suit property. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the objection. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pushparaj Surajprasad Modh .v. Sayyad Altaf Sayyad Wazir and others (reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J., 492) and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagdish Saran .v. Jaidai Kunwar 3 and another (reported in AIR 1933 Allahabad 903). As against this, Shri S.M. Nafde, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that on a conjoint reading of Section 6(iv)(d) and sub section (v) of Section 6, it would be clear that where in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction pertaining to the agricultural land, the Court fees would be half of ad valorem fee.

He further submits that from the perusal of the Maharashtra Suits Valuation (Determination of Value of Land for Jurisdictional Purposes) Rules, 1983, it would be clear that for the purposes of jurisdiction, the value of the property shall be determined in case of an agricultural land, taking into consideration a sum equal to two hundred times of the assessment payable in respect of the land. Section 6(iv)(d) reads as under :-

(d) for ownership etc. of immovable property, etc. In suits for declaration in respect of ownership, or nature of tenancy, title, tenure, right, lease, freedom or exemption from, or non-liability to, attachment with or without sale or other attributes, of immovable property, such as a declaration that certain land is personal property of the Ruler of any former Indian State or public trust property or property of any class or community one-fourth of ad valorem fee leviable for a suit for possession on the basis of title of the subject matter, subject to a minimum fee of one 4 hundred rupees.

It can thus be seen that when a suit for declaration of ownership is to be filed, the Court fee payable would be one fourth of ad valorem fee leviable for a suit for possession on the basis of the title of the subject matter, subject to a minimum fee of Rs.100/-. It could further be seen from the third proviso that when in addition any consequential relief other than possession was sought the amount of fee shall be one-half of ad valorem fee.

Sub section (v) Section 6 deals with valuation of the possession of lands, houses and gardens. Sub Section (v) clearly provides that in suits for the possession of land, house and garden, the valuation should be according to the market value of house and garden. However, it is provided that where the subject matter is a land and where the land is held on permanent settlement, or on a settlement for any period exceeding thirty years, it shall be a sum equal to 80 times of the survey assessment. It is thus clear that on the conjoint reading of both these provisions the Court fees payable for a suit claiming declaration of ownership pertaining to an agricultural land and the consequential relief other than the possession, the Court fee payable is one-half of ad valorem fee. In so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, from the perusal of Rule 2 of 5 the said Rules, it would be clear that where the subject matter is a house or garden, the determination of valuation should be according to market value, however, where the subject matter is land, it shall be a sum equal to two hundred times of the assessment payable. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I do not find any error committed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the objections filed by the present applicant. No case is made out for interference. Hence, CRA is rejected. *rrg. JUDGE