Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rachit Shah vs Prafull Kumar Shah on 18 December, 2015
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
(S.B.: HON. SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
Writ Petition No. 2951 of 2015
Rachit Shah
Petitioner
Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Shah & others
Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Brajesh Garg, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Anil Jain learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3.
None for respondent No. 4.
Shri R. Mangal, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting :
ORDER
(Passed on 18th day of December,2015 )
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit challenging the order of trial court dated 25/4/15 whereby the trial court while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has directed the petitioner to value the suit on the basis of principle of real money and pay the court fee accordingly.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial court has not determined any valuation of the suit nor any court fee has been fixed. He has submitted that considering the nature of averments in plaint and the relief claimed, the case of petitioner is covered under Section 7(iv) of Court Fees Act, therefore, the petitioner was free to value the suit as per his own choice. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay the court fee at the market value 2 and at the most issue can be framed and decided.
3. Counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition submitting that valuation of the suit is very unreasonable and the provision of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act is attracted and the relief of injunction claimed by petitioner is a consequential relief therefore, advalorem court fee is required to be paid.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5 The petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the plea that the suit property is the ancestral property and claiming the relief that the suit property be declared as undivided joint Hindu family property and petitioner has equal right in the suit property and injunction be granted restraining the respondents from alienating or creating third party right. The petitioner had valued the suit for declaration as Rs.1,000/- and paid Rs. 500 as court fee and had valued the suit for permanent injunction as Rs. 1,000/- and had paid court fee of Rs. 120. 6 Trial court while passing the impugned order has reached to the conclusion that the relief of permanent injunction claimed by petitioner is a consequential relief which cannot be granted without granting the relief of declaration because unless the suit properties are declared to be the ancestral properties or purchased from proceeds of the ancestral properties, the respondent No. 1 who is owner of the property cannot be restrained by way of permanent injunction. Hence provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act are attracted. Trial court has further noted that the petitioner has filed the suit in respect of four agricultural land, petrol pump, plots and building construction thereon, therefore, the valuation of the suit for such a large property is unreasonable and low. In these circumstances, the trial court has issued a direction for valuing the suit properly and payment of advalorem court fee. 7 In the present case the trial court has not committed any error in taking the view that the relief of permanent injunction is a 3 consequential relief, therefore the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act have been attracted. That apart, the perusal of the plaint reveals that considering the nature and extent of the suit property the valuation of the suit is arbitrary and very low. 8 The view which has been taken by the trial court is supported by the Division Bench judgment of this court in the matter of Badrilal Vs. State, reported in 1963 JLJ 674, wherein it has been held that under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act the plaintiff has liberty to put the valuation but the valuation should not be arbitrary and if the relief sought has real money value, it is valuation for court fees. While holding so the Division Bench of this Court has relied upon several judgments including the Full Bench Judgment in the matter of Badrilal Bholaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1964 MP 9 has reiterated the same view by holding that while the plaintiff is at liberty to value the relief claimed in suits governed by the various clauses of sub-section (iv), including those for a declaration with the consequential relief of injunction, he cannot be allowed to put an arbitrary value and that, if he does so and the court considers that it is too low or unreasonable or that it bears no relation to the right litigated then it may require him to correct the valuation. Same is the view taken in the matter of Usha Singhai Vs. Niramal Kumar Singhai reported in 1983 MPWN 15. 9 Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. S.Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 and Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad and another reported in AIR 1987 SC 2085 but in those judgments also it has been held that in case where it appears to the court on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary and unreasonable and plaint has been demonstratively under valued, the Court can examine the same.
410 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any patent illegality. 11 Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Supreme court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that High court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High court can exercise this power when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12 Keeping in view the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order of the trial court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ