1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, laid the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from laying any road in the plaint scheduled land, They made a notional value at Rs. 1,000/-, for the relief claimed and a court fee of Rs. 111/- was paid, Under Section 26(c) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, (for short the Act'). For the purpose of jurisdiction the market value of the subject matter was shown as Rs. 75,000/-and therefore the suit came to be filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajam.
2. The inspecting staff of the District Court issued a check slip stating that the suit having been valued at Rs. 75,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, since the pecuniary jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge's Court commences from Rs. 50,000/-, the court fee should be paid on Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioners filed objections maintaining that the court fee paid by them was proper as it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, rejected the objections and directed the petitioners to pay the court fee of Rs. 75,000/-. Hence the C.R.P.
3. It is contended that the suit can be differently valued, one for the purpose of Court Fees and another for the purpose of jurisdiction. The value shown for the purpose of court fees is under the Act, on the value of the relief sought for and the value shown for the purpose of jurisdiction is under the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972, on the market value of the subject matter. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to pay court fees on the value shown for the purpose of jurisdiction, but only on the value shown for the purpose of court fees.
4. The short question that arises is whether the petitioners are liable to pay the court fees on the basis of the market value of the subject matter given for the purpose of jurisdiction, in the suit for injunction, Under Section 26(c) of the Act?
5. It is generally true that there can be two valuations, one for the purpose of court fees and another for the purpose of jurisdiction as held in Gunna Venkataratnam v. Gunna Kesava Rao, 1988 (1) ALT 649. But the position with regard to a suit for injunction, the court fees payable Under Section 26(c) of the Act appears to be different.
6. Sections 26(c) and 50 of the Act are relevant in this context and they are extracted hereunder:
"26. SUITS FOR INJUNCTION: In a suit for injunction-
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) in any other case, whether the subject matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher."
"50. SUITS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR:
(1) If no specific provision is made in this Act or any other law regarding the value of any suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.
(2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value the amount stated in the plaint."
7. It is, therefore, seen that Under Section 26(c) of the Act, the fees has to be valued on the amount at which the relief sought is valued by the plaintiffs. It is valued at Rs. 1,000/- and a court fees of Rs. 111 /- has been paid. This provision occurs in Chapter-IV which relates to computation of fee. Chapter-V of the Act deals with valuation of suits. Section 50 occurs in this Chapter. This provision, is applicable to suits where there is no provision in the Act or in any other law regarding the value of the suit for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of Courts. Then, in those suits, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction and the value for the purpose of court fees shall be the same. There is no other provision in the Act dealing with the value of suits for injunction for the purpose of jurisdiction. Section 26 occurs in the Chapter dealing computation of fee. Hence, as contended, the said provision cannot be treated as such a provision. However, this question is no longer rasintegra. The Apex Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, considered this aspect and held that in a suit for mere injunction the proper method for the purpose of valuing a suit for the purpose of jurisdiction of the court is to value the suit for the purpose of court fee first, and to treat that value for the purpose of jurisdiction, but not vice versa. It was observed at p. 252 thus:
"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 the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of Court-fees and that is natural enough. The computation of court-fees in suits falling Under Section 7 (iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for Court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purpose of court fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa."
Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act is almost identical to Sub-section (1) of Secion 50 of the Act. Sub-section (iv) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act (1870) is akin to C26(c) of the Act and deals with computation of Court-fee in a suit for injunction. Considering these two provisions in order to determine the valuation of a suit for injunction, falling Under Section 26(c) of the Act, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the Apex Court ruled as above. Relying upon this decision Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, as he then was, in B.S. Nagaraj v. S. Manjappa, AIR 1972 Mysore 163, held that in a suit for injunction Section 50(1) of the Court Fees Act is primarily applicable. The ratio of these decisions squarely applies to the case on hand. The decisions in Gunna Venkataratnam (1 supra) and in Srinivas v. Subbappa, , cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have no application since they were suits, though for injunction, but falling Under Section 26(a) of the Act, where the considerations for the purpose of payment of court-fee, and valuation are different.
8. In this connection Section 16 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act is referred, which speaks of jurisdiction of District Courts, Sub-Courts and the Munsiffs Courts. It indicates a forum before which a suit has to be filed, depending upon the market value of the subject matter of the suit. The jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, can be invoked if the value of the subject matter of the suit is Rs. 50,000/- or more. In a suit for injunction the notional value given by the plaintiff, at his option, for the relief sought is the criterion for the payment of court-fee, which however, is subject to revision by the Court. Hence, the provision cannot be taken as the provision for determing the value for the purpose of jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 50(1) of the Act.
9. A few other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be dealt with in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Sathappa Chettiar's case (2 supra), on the point raised in the case.
10. I, therefore, hold that the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of court-fees is one and the same in the suit for injunction in view of Section 26(c) and Section 50(1) of the Act, which is valued at Rs. 1,000/-. The court-fees paid is proper. Hence the suit ought to have been filed before the court of a competent District Munsif. whether the value given at Rs. 1,000/- is too low or not, it is for the District Munsif to consider after it was presented before him The Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed, with a direction to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation in proper Court. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment