Karnataka High Court
Momammed Mirajuddin vs M.A. Iqbal And Others on 4 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)KARLJ431
ORDER
1. An interesting question is raised in this revision petition regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the method of valuing the property within the meaning of Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act read with Section 24(a).
2. The facts urged in this suit are, the suit is filed on the immoveable property involved in the suit was ought to be valued under Section 24, sub-clause (a). Section 24(a) reads as follows:
"24. Suits for declaration.--In a suit for declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 24,--
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which, declaration relates, fee would be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees (one thousand), whichever is higher".
The word 'market value' occurring in Section 24(a) has been explained in Section 7 and Section 7 reads as follows:
"7. Determination of market value.--(1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property the said value shall be determined on the date of presentation of the plaint.
(2) The market value of land in suits falling under Section 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be-
(a) where the land forms the entire estate, or definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded in the Deputy Commissioner's register as separately assessed with such revenue and such revenue is permanently settled -- twenty-five times the revenue so payable;
(b) where the land forms the entire estate, or definite share of estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled, but not permanently -- twelve and half times the revenue so payable;
(c) where the land pays no such revenue or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with in payment in lieu of such revenue -- fifteen times the net profits if any from the land during the year before the date of presenting the plaint or thirty times the revenue payable on the same extent of similar land in the neighbourhood, whichever is lower;
(d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed above mentioned or the land is a garden or the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, or is land not falling within the description act, the market value of the land".
3. Now the immovable property involved in the suit is house on the vacant land. Under Section 7, sub-clause (d) the vacant land which is not agricultural land and which has become urban land has to be valued on the basis of market value of the land. The Trial Court, on the petition made by the plaintiff has appointed the Sub-Registrar of the concerned area as Commissioner and the Sub-Registrar had given the value at Rs. 6,06,000/-. He has also deducted the depreciation from the main value of Rs. 8,16,360/-. For arriving at that figure, the Sub-Registrar concerned has taken the guideline value fixed by the Government.
4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court in M.A. No. 31 of 1997 rejected the valuation given by the Sub-Registrar. The order of the Appellate Court is challenged in this revision.
5. Mr. Rao, appearing for the petitioner submitted that even according to the Exhibit P. 6 relied upon by the plaintiff and the certificate given by the City Municipal Council, the market value is given as Rs. 3,46,702/- and out of which house tax paid and Government cess paid, cost of repairs have been deducted. It is not proper if tax paid on the building is to be deducted. Then, after some time, the building value becomes nil. The tax is paid to the Municipality and it cannot be deducted as of depreciation. Therefore, it is contended in any event the value being more than Rs. 3.00 lakhs the return by the plaint by the Trial Court is proper.
6. Mr. Deshpande, appearing for the respondents has contended that the Exhibit P. 6 is based upon the Government Circulars and the value is arrived at on the basis of an appropriate authority fixed by the corporation. He has also relied upon the dictum of this Court in Karnataka Theosophical Federation (Registered), Bangalore v Balakrishna Ashrama, Mulabagal Town, Kolar District, to the fact that revision will not lie on a finding which is a finding on fact and which would not affect the jurisdiction.
7. Heard the respective Counsel. Prima facie the dictum relied upon by the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the case because in this case the jurisdiction of the Court is involved. As a elbow-room has been made by the learned Judge in the above said revision that if it affects the jurisdiction then certainly revision is maintainable. Thus the objection stands over-ruled.
8. If otherwise, against the return of the plaint which is the final order passed by the Trial Court only revision lies and no appeal is maintainable. Therefore, the appeal is not competent by the respondents before the First Appellate Court.
9. Now, on the question of market value it is made clear in the Court Fees Act that market value is a value for which the property is saleable in the market. Now, one of the methods fixed by the Government to decide the market value is the valuation by the Sub-Registrar under the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. That has come to stay and the orders questioning such valuation fixed by the Sub-Registrar has all been rejected by the Courts. Therefore, the valuation given by the Sub-Registrar is certainly to be accepted or acted upon by the Court below. In fact, there is not much difference between Exhibit P. 6 value given by the Engineer and the Sub-Registrar. While the Engineer himself has given the value at Rs. 3.00 lakhs without depreciation, the Sub-Registrar has relied upon the Circular fixing the value per sq. ft. of the building. The plinth area of the building is also wrongly given by the Engineer of the Municipal Council. The plinth area appears to be 2,660 sq. ft. whereas, it has been shown as 1,714 sq. ft. The open area has already been wrongly measured while the Sub-Registrar has correctly calculated as per the map of the open area at 3,178.59 sq. ft. The Municipal Engineer has calculated only at 2,127 sq. ft. In any event, I am satisfied that the value given by the Sub-Registrar must be accepted as the market value.
10. In this view, confirming the order returning plaint to be presented to the proper Court, the C.R.P. is allowed. The Court on receiving the plaint shall pass orders regarding payment of Court fee in accordance with law.