Krityanand Singh and Others vs Dinu Manjhi and Others

The petitioner is the proprietor of Patheria village in Godda pargana in the Santal Parganas. He claims the right to appoint the gorait of the village; but although when a vacancy occurred, he made a nomination. The Sub-divisional Magistrate made another appointment after putting the matter to the vote among the raiyats of the village, and the Magistrate''s nominee entered into possession of the goraiti jagir. The proprietor, after contesting the matter before the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, instituted a suit praying for a declaration that in pargana Godda the gorait is the zamindar''s servant and that he has the right of appointing him and praying that possession of the goraiti jagir land should be restored to the nominee of the proprietor.

The suit was valued at Rs. 1,500 as a suit for a declaration with consequential relief. Objection to the valuation was taken in his written statement by the gorait in possession; and the Subordinate Judge found that the value was Rs. 746. He arrived at this figure by valuing the office of the gorait at Rs. 500 and the gorait jagir at Rs. 216. Suits of a value of under a thousand rupees are not triable in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, so that the plaint was returned for presentation in the proper Court.

The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge who affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The District Judge held that the value of the suit was Rs. 246 being the value of the goraiti jagir of which the plaintiffs sought to recover possession. He agreed with the view of the Subordinate Judge that the suit fell u/s 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act, as a suit for a declaration with consequential relief, in which the value of the suit should be held to be the value of the consequential relief claimed by the plaintiffs.

He did not accept the valuation made by the Subordinate Judge, considering that it was not correct to value separately the office of the gorait and the remuneration for the office. He therefore found that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 246 thus affirming more emphatically than the Subordinate Judge that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge. Mr. S.M. Mullick on behalf of the petitioners argues that the declaration which he claimed that the proprietor had the right of appointing and dismissing goraits in the whole of Pargana Godda was necessary for the relief which he claimed; and he claims that he is entitled to put his own valuation on his declaration.

The Courts below valued the land constituting the goraiti jagir according to the rules for the valuation of non-saleable holdings in the Santal Parganas; but Mr. S.M. Mullick argues that this land ought not to be valued in that way, but according to its market value as saleable, land. He argues that the Court must accept the value of the relief stated in the plaint for the purposes of court-fees as well as of jurisdiction and that he is entitled to place his own valuation on his suit. He also argues that if the suit was found not to have been within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, he ought to have dismissed it, and not to have returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court.

The declaration for which the plaintiff asks, that he has the right to appoint goraits in pargana Godda, is as the learned District Judge has pointed out a declaration which cannot be effectively made in the present suit in which the only defendants are the gorait of mauza Patheria and the headman of that village. If a declaration of the broad kind of which the plaintiff asks were made in the suits, it would not be binding on goraits of any other villages. It would to that extent be ineffective so that it cannot be said that a declaration of this kind is necessary in order that the relief claimed may be granted; but whatever may be the form of the declaration that may be necessary in order to obtain the relief which is claimed, the value of the suit is the value of the consequential relief which in this case is the recovery of possession of the jagir land.

The same remarks apply to the prayer for a declaration that the order appointing the defendant as gorait of Patheria is without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff which is the same declaration as the first expressed in another form. Mr. S.M. Mullick suggests that the Court must accept the value of the relief stated in the plaint for the purpose of court-fees as well as for the purpose of jurisdiction, citing the decisions in Hari Sankar Dutt v. Kali Kumar Patra (1905) 32 Cal 734 and in Vachhani Keshabai v. Vachhani Bavaji (1909) 38 (sic) 307. But the defendant is entitled to take objection to the valuation given in the plaint, both as affecting the question of jurisdiction and as affecting the question of court-fees; and when objection is taken, the Court is obliged to enter into the question of whether the value is correct.

The matter is of importance to the defendant, because if he should be unsuccessful in the suit his costs will be calculated according to the valuation; and if he should need to appeal he will have to pay a court-fee based on that valuation. A plaintiff is entitled to place any value which he pleases on his suit and thus to make it beyond the power of the defendant to appeal if the plaintiff should succeed in the trial Court; and thus also to be entitled to claim a larger amount of costs than would be warranted by the true value of the suit.

It has been held in this Court from the very beginning that the valuation of a suit must not be arbitrary; and that it is the business of the Court to look to the valuation and see that it is approximately correct or justifiable.

As I have said the value of the suit governed by Section 7(4)(c), court-fees Act, is the value of the relief claimed. In order to ascertain the value of the land the Courts below have applied the rules of the valuation of non-saleable holdings in the Santal Parganas. Mr. S.M. Mullick suggests that these rules ought not to be applied to a suit which is valued at over Rs. 1,000; and he further suggests that this jagir ought not to be treated as if it were non-saleable holding. Now in the first place the rules prescribed by the Local Government though they may apply strictly speaking only in suits which are governed by the Santal Parganas Regulations, do afford rough and ready means of valuing claims for recovery of possession of non-saleable lands; and I am not prepared to say that the lower Courts were not justified in applying them for the valuation of this jagir.

Mr. S.M. Mullick suggests that the jagir is the absolute property of the proprietor and that for its valuation the Courts ought to have ascertained the annual value of the profits derivable from it. But it is not suggested in the plait that the land is anything but goraiti jagir, that is to say, the land is dedicated as the jagir of the gorait of the village; and the proprietor prays not that possession may be delivered to himself but that it may be delivered to the gorait. I do not consider that any fault can be found in the manner of the valuation adopted by the Courts below.

Mr. S.M. Mullick further suggests that if the Subordinate Judge found that the suit was not within his jurisdiction, he ought not to have returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court but he ought to have dismissed the suit, making a distinction between cases in which the plaint should merely have been presented in a Court of the same kind but with lower pecuniary jurisdiction and cases in which the plaint ought to have been presented in a Court exercising a different kind of jurisdiction. Order 7, Rule 10 merely prescribes that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted; and if, for instance, the plaint is preferred in the Revenue Court which has no jurisdiction, the proper course for the Revenue Court to follow is to return the plaint for presentation in the proper Court which may be the civil Court: Pohap Singh and Others Vs. Mohan Singh and Another, .

I do not find that any error of law has been committed by the Courts below in dealing with this case and the application is dismissed with costs: Hearing fee three gold mohurs.