Allahabad High Court
Munindra Swaroop Mathur And 7 Others vs Satya Veer Singh And 8 Others on 31 October, 2019
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 156 of 2019 Revisionist :- Munindra Swaroop Mathur And 7 Others Opposite Party :- Satya Veer Singh And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Prasad Mathur,Sanjiv Singh, Sr. Advocate Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Sanjiv Singh, Senior Advocate for the revisionists.
The revision is directed against the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad in Original Suit No. 399 of 2009, whereby issue no. 6 framed in the suit has been decided against the plaintiff-revisionist. The issue no. 6 framed in the suit was whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is under valued.
The suit filed by the revisionist is for a declaration that a sale deed is void and also for permanent injunction.
The Court below in the impugned order has held that in the plaint, the valuation of the property in suit has been given as Rs. 40 lacs, but since two separate reliefs have been claimed namely, one for declaration that a sale deed is void and for permanent injunction, the valuation of the suit would have to be determined by adding the valuation for the two reliefs.
The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the valuation of the suit property would remain the same. Only the court fees as regards the separate reliefs claimed in the suit would have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act. It is contended that the suit property has rightly been valued as 40 lacs. Its valuation will not become 80 lacs, merely because two separate reliefs have been claimed in the suit.
Perusal of the plaint of the suit wherefrom the instant revision arises reveals that in paragraph 15, the valuation of the suit has been mentioned as Rs. 40 lacs and for the purposes of jurisdiction as regards the relief for declaration, it has been mentioned as 1/5th of Rs. 40 lacs, namely Rs. 8 lacs. Court fees of Rs. 500/- for injunction and Rs. 200/- for the declaration, has been paid.
Upon hearing counsel for the revisionist and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the contention of counsel for the revisionist that the valuation of the suit will remain the same irrespective of the reliefs that have been claimed. The court fees payable for the reliefs would have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act. Merely because two separate reliefs have been claimed regarding one property, the valuation of the suit property will not double.
Under the circumstances and in the interest of justice, this revision is being disposed of by clarifying the situation.
This order is being passed without issuing notice to the opposite party as the order proposed to be passed is merely clarificatory in nature. The clarification is being issued because, as yet, the consequential amendment required to be made by the plaintiff in the plaint in pursuance of the impugned order has not been made.
It is therefore, clarified that the court fees paid for the relief of permanent injunction namely Rs. 500/-, is adequate as that is the maximum court fees payable for the relief of injunction as provided under the second proviso to Section 7(iv-B) of the Court Fees Act.
In so far as the relief for declaration is concerned, the court fees paid as per the averment contained in paragraph 15 of the plaint is Rs. 200/-. This court fees has been determined and paid in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 17(iii) of the II Schedule of the Court Fees Act.
This in my considered opinion, is not correct because the court fees liable to be paid for the relief of cancellation/declaration of a sale deed to be void will have to be computed in accordance with Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act and not in accordance with Article 17(iii) of the II Schedule. The said Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act reads as follows:-
"For cancellation or adjudging void instrument and decrees.-(iv-A) In suit for or involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other property having a market value, or an instrument securing money or other property having such value:
(1) where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title was a party to the decree or the instrument, according to the value of the subject-matter; and (2) where he or his predecessor-in-title was not a party to the decree or instrument, according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to be-
if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed or the instrument executed, and if only a party of the decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount or value of the property to which such part relates.
Explanation.- The value of the property for the purposes of this sub-section, shall be the market-value, which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B), as the case may be."
The revision under the circumstances is disposed of in terms of what has been stated herein above observing that plaintiff may amend his plaint, paying court fees in accordance with Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Mayank