Dwarka Prosad vs krishna Chandra and Others

James, J.—In this case we are concerned with the question of jurisdiction, and as affecting the question of jurisdiction with questions of classification u/s 7, Court-fees Act, and Section 8, Suits Valuation Act. Certain villages, formerly the property of the plaintiffs'' family, have been sold in execution of a decree, and I am told that delivery of possession has been made though on this point the plaint is silent. The suit is instituted by members of the family other than the person who took the loan, praying for a declaration that the decree was obtained by fraud and for the consequential relief that the sale in execution may be set aside and the plaintiffs'' possession confirmed. The plaintiffs have valued their suit at the amount which was realized at the court sale, which would place the suit within the jurisdiction of the Munsif The Munsif has accepted this valuation; but the defendants object that on a proper valuation of the suit, the Munsif would not have jurisdiction.

The suit is a suit praying for confirmation of possession of certain land. It was held in Babu Ram Sekhar Prasad Singh and Others Vs. Sheonandan Dubey and Others, that such a suit is to; be regarded as a suit for possession that is to say, for purposes of classification u/s 7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act, no distinction, is to be drawn between a suit for confirmation of possession and a suit for recovery of possession. In a suit in which the consequential relief is confirmation or recovery of possession of land, the value of the suit is the value of the land, though a question may arise as to how the value of the land'' is to be calculated after the recent amendment of Sub-section 5 of Section 7, Court-fees Act. The learned Munsif was gravely in error in imagining that the rule followed in the Patna High Court is that in a suit falling u/s 7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act, the plaintiff may place his own value on the suit without any regard to the real value of the relief which he claims.

The very case which he cites as supporting this view, A Sitaram Singh Vs. Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur and Others, lays down the rule that the value of a suit u/s 7(iv)(c) is the value of the relief claimed and that the plaintiff is not entitled to place on that relief any value which may please him. He is mistaken in supposing that in that case the plaintiff was permitted to value his suit at Rs. 40, the original value which he placed on it. The value was placed by this Court at Rs. 300 and court-fee had to be paid on that amount. The attention of the Munsif should have been drawn also to the decision in Ramcharitar Panday and Others Vs. Basgit Rai and Others, wherein the question was discussed by Scroope and Macpherson JJ. The rule affecting suits instituted for the purpose of setting aside decrees is simple. Where the suit is instituted before execution, the value of the suit is the value of; the decree.

Where the suit is instituted after property has passed by execution proceedings, the value of the suit is the value; of the property. In the present case the, first two villages described in the plaint if they were valued u/s 7(v) would have a value of Rs. 6346 without any reference to the third village which is there mentioned.

The suit is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Munsif, and he should return the plaint for presentation to a Court having jurisdiction after the plaintiffs have properly amended the valuation. This application is allowed with costs: Hearing fee two gold mohurs.