Calcutta High Court
Smt. Santilata Chiney vs Balaram Khan on 4 July, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1987CAL106, AIR 1987 CALCUTTA 106
ORDER Sankar Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This revisional application raises a short point for determination.
The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 53 of 1983 of the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Serampur. The suit was brought against her by the opposite party for a declaration that he is owner of the suit properties by virtue of the registered deed of gift executed in his favour on 22-5-80 by his uncle late Prabhat Ranjan Khan who was the original owner of the properties.
2. The case of the opposite party is that his uncle died on 14-6-80 and on 22-5-80 he executed a registered deed of gift conveying the suit properties to him (opposite party). The petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased was, however, realising rents from the tenants of the suit properties and interfering with his possession of the same in various other ways. As his right to the suit properties was clouded by the acts of the petitioner, he had to bring the suit for the reliefs stated above.
3. The suit was valued at Rs. 20/- under Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court-fees Act for the purpose of Court-Fees and Jurisdiction. An objection was raised by the petitioner to the effect that since relief was claimed in respect of the suit properties which, according to the deed of gift, were valued at Rs. 9,975/-, the valuation put by the opposite party was not acceptable and the court should revise the valuation under Section 11 of the Court-fees Act.
4. The learned Munsif overruled the objection holding that there was no objective standard for revising the valuation as the opposite party neither prayed for recovery of possession of the suit properties nor for other relief in respect of the same.
5. Mr. Matilal appearing in support of the Rule, seriously assails the finding of the learned Munsif as erroneous and contends that since the market value of the suit properties was put at Rs. 9,975/- in the deed of gift, the learned Munsif ought to have held that the relief claimed by the opposite party was capable of objective valuation and should have fixed the valuation at Rs. 9,975/- for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction.
6. In support of his contention Mr. Matilal has cited two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Tarai Tea Company v. L.I.C. India and in Hind Wire Industries v. U. P. State Electricity Board, reported in (1977) 2 Cal U 258.
7. In the first case the plaintiff-company's allegation was that it entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India for purchase of Rs. 14,960 fully paid up equity shares of New Tea Company Ltd. of the face value of Rs. 60/- each @ Rs. 150/- per share.
The Life Insurance Corporation of India, in breach of that agreement, had sold the shares to other parties who were made defendants in the suit. In the relief sought the plaintiff asked for a declaration that the property in the shares had passed to him and also asked for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to re-deliver the shares to the plaintiff.
8. On the above facts it was held that however dexterously the plaint might have been drafted, the relief that the plaintiff wanted was the relief of declaration of ownership coupled with possession of the shares alleged to have been purchased by it. Their Lordships were, therefore, of the opinion that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff was valued above Rs. 22,00,000/-, being the face value of the shares.
9. In the next case reported in (1977) 2 Cal LJ 258 the plaintiff filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, inter alia, for a declaration that the defendant No. 1 was not entitled to enforce and/or give effect to a bank guarantee executed between the parties to the suit and to realise the amount as covered under the bank guarantee from defendant No. 2 (Allahabad Bank), in giving effect to the said bank guarantee, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No 8511 from enforcing and/or giving effect to the bank guarantee executed between the parties to the suit on 28-1-75 and from realising the amount covered by the bank guarantee from defendant No. 2 in giving effect to the said bank guarantee. The suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 200/- for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction.
10. The question that fell for determination before their Lordships was whether on the plaint it could be said that the relief claimed could be valued with reference to any objective standard. It was held that it appeared from the plaint that the plaintiff was seeking to avoid forfeiture of a sum of Rs. 91,900/- which, on the terms of the contract the respondent No. 1 had forfeited. When, therefore, the plaintiff was seeking to avoid forfeiture of such a liquidated amount, that amount really represented the value of the relief claimed.
11. From the facts stated above, it would appear that in both the cases under reference there were objective standard for valuation of the relief claimed by the plaintiff. In the case before us, the plaintiff seeks declaration of his title to the suit properties on the basis of the deed of gift alleged to have been executed in his favour by his deceased uncle and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering with his possession of the suit properties. In my opinion, the instant case is clearly distinguishable from the cases under reference as in the instant case there is no objective standard for valuation of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. Simply because the plaintiff seeks declaration of his title to the suit properties on the basis of the deed of gift it cannot be said that the market value of the suit properties as given in the deed of gift should be the valuation for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction. I, therefore, think that the view taken by the learned Munsif was correct and there is no reason for interference with the impugned order.
12. In the result, the Rule is discharged. The learned Munsif will expedite the disposal of the suit as far as possible. The records be sent down immediately to the court below. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.