Ambar Kumar vs 8th Adj

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

After elevation of the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent to the Bench of the Uttranchal High Court, contesting Respondent has not engaged any other counsel.

Petitioner is Defendant in original suit No. 498 of 1985 instituted by contesting Respondents. Petitioner raised the objection in respect of valuation and court fee regarding which issue No. 5 was framed. The said issue was decided as preliminary issue and against the Petitioner. IInd Additional Munsif, Muzaffarnagar through order dated 6.10.1990 decided the said issue in favour of the Plaintiff. Against the said order Defendant-Petitioner filed civil revision No. 166 of 1990. VIII Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar dismissed the revision on 17.5.1991 hence this writ petition.

Property in dispute is 11 biswas land of plot No. 293. Copy of the plaint is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The land in dispute is entered in the revenue record as bhoomadhari land of the Plaintiffs. The valuation of the suit was shown to be 30 times of land revenue of entire khata which included two other plots apart from plot in dispute i.e. plot No. 293. Total lagan/land revenue of the entire khata was Rs. 13.40 per year. 30 times of the same came to Rs. 420/-. The relief claimed was of injunction. Court fee of Rs. 22.50 was paid on the plaint. The main argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that as plot No. 293 was not separately assessed to land revenue hence the formula of 30 times of yearly land revenue could not be applied for determining the market value. The argument is utterly mis-conceived. Plot No. 293 is part of a khata and valuation has been done at the rate of 30 times of land revenue of the entire khata. Accordingly, it is on the higher side. Therefore, No. fault can be found with it. In case valuation had been determined by proportionately reducing the yearly land revenue then the argument of the Plaintiff could have some merit. Both the courts below placed reliance upon Randhir Singh and Another Vs. Randhir Singh and Others . Under Section-7(iv-B) of the Court-fees Act as amended by Uttar Pradesh, it is provided that in a suit to obtain an injunction court fees is to be paid on one-fifth of the market value of the property involved. Thereafter under Explanation-I to the same Sub-section it is provided as follows:

Explanation 1. - When the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, the market-value of such property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with Sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B) of this section, as the case may be.

u/s 7(V) it is provided that in suits for the possession of lands, houses and gardens court fee must be paid according to the value of the subject matter; and such value shall be deemed to be -where the subject-matter is land and (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector''s register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled - ten times the revenue so paid.

It is therefore, clear that even though the Section 7(v) deals with suits for possession however, the formula of determining market value given therein is clearly applicable to suits for injunction also as provided u/s 7(iv-B) of the Act as amended by U.P. by virtue of its Explanation-1.

Even otherwise maximum court fee payable on suit for injunction is Rs. 500/-.

There is absolutely No. merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-for the reason that due to filing of this writ petition and interim order passed in this writ petition, proceedings of the suit remained pending for twenty years.

As far as question of determination of valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is concerned, it is covered by Suits Valuation Act 1887. u/s 3 of the said Act it is provided that the State Government may make rules for determining the value of land for the purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act 1870, Section 7 paragraphs V, V-A and V-B ( as amended in Uttar Pradesh). Government of U.P. framed the Rules u/s 3 of the Suits Valuation Act on 4.4.1942 published in the U.P. Gazette of 11.4.1942. Under Rule 3 it was provided that in suits for possession of land the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction shall be thirty times the annual revenue, if annual revenue is payable.

Section 4 of Suits Valuation Act 1887 as substituted by U.P. with effect from 16.7.1939 is quoted below:

Valuation of certain suits for the purposes of jurisdiction-Suits mentioned in paragraphs IV(a), IVA, IVB, V, VA,VB, VI, VIA, VIII and X(d) of Section 7 and Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Sch. II of the Court-fees Act, 1870, as in force for the time being in the Uttar Pradesh, shall be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by or the title to which is affected by the relief sought, or at the amount involved in or affected by or the title to which is affected by the relief sought, and such value shall, in the case of land, be deemed to be the value as determinable in accordance with the rules framed u/s 3. U.P. Act 7 of 1939, Section 3 (16.7.1939).

In view of the above, in a suit for injunction the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction would be thirty times the land revenue. It has been so held in Rafiq Khan v. Mohammad Umar Khan 1983 A.W.C. 315.

Accordingly, there is No. error in the impugned orders. Writ petition is dismissed.