Madangopal Vallabhdas vs Janardhan Barku and another

B. N. Deshmukh, J.—This revision application has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 9-1-1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ramtek. The suit is for possession of agricultural land and the court fees are paid on the market value calculated at 12 1/2 times the assessment payable to Government. The same valuation has been shown by the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction. The defendants raised a question of law before the trial Court that it had no jurisdiction. The jurisdictional value ought to be the market value of the land and the market value will have to be independently assessed apart from its assessment. Since this objection has been overruled by the trial Judge the defendants have filed this revision application.

Before I come to the consideration of the point raised by Mr. Chandurkar for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, let me make it clear that the court-fees now payable in this State are governed by the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. The present valuation for the purpose of court-fees falls under clause (v) of section 6 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. To this provision, section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, does not apply. It is not necessary, therefore, that the valuation for the payment of court-fees and the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction need be the same. Since section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, does not apply, it is obvious that the jurisdiction of the Court in a suit for possession of property would be the market value of that property. Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, enables the State Government to make rules for the purpose of valuation for jurisdiction under suits falling u/s 6(v) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, along with some other kinds of suits. So far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned before and after reorganization of States no rules have ever been made by this State or its predecessor-State.

When that was the position namely, that section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act did not apply to suits falling u/s 7 (v) of the former Court-fees Act and section 6 (v) of the present Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, a consistent view has been taken by this Court that the market value of the property will be the value for jurisdiction. In Ganesh Gopal Vs. Moreshwar Narayan, the then Chief Justice had to deal with the suit relating to the possession of land assessed to revenue. A judgment of the Madras High Court was cited before the learned Chief Justice. However, he differed from the observations in that judgment and came to the conclusion to the following observation in para. No. 8:-

"In my opinion therefore differing with respect from the decision of the Madras High Court in Janab E.M. Ghulam Dastagir Saheb Vs. Marudai Pillai and Another, the suit falls under S. 7 (v), Court-fees Act, and therefore the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction must be the market value of the property, and admittedly the market value is much more than Rs. 10,000."

Though the court-fee payable was much less in terms of the market value defined by section 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the jurisdictional market value was taken to be the actual market value namely, the price at which the land could be reasonably sold in free market.

In the case before me, the suit is for possession and the court-fees paid u/s 6 (v) of the present Court-fees Act are proper. The valuation for jurisdiction would be the market value and the market value will have to be determined not in an artificial manner but in a normal way in which a price could be fetched in the open market. A similar view has also been taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in A. O. No. 21 of 1964 decided on September 30, 1965. However, Mr. Chandurkar refers me to a notification issued u/s 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 by then Government of the Madhya Pradesh. Under the powers vested in the State Government for making rules under section- 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, the Madhya Pradesh Government made rule. So far as the revenue paying lands are concerned, the rule appears to be that the market value for the purpose of jurisdiction will be 15 times the assessment payable to the State. He further argues that this rule must be deemed to be in force in the Vidarbha Region of the present Maharashtra State, He primarily relies upon section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, for the continuation in this area of all laws which were formerly in force in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State. However, when these rules were made in the Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Bombay, the Court-fees Act which was in force was the 1870 Court-fees Act as amended by the respective States in its application to them. The rules made u/s 3 of the Suits Valuation Act related to the valuation for jurisdiction of suits falling under the Court-fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs v and vi and paragraph x, clause (d).

In 1959 the reorganised State of Bombay enacted the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. It came in force on the 1st of August 1959. As a result of this Act'' the Suits Valuation Act-sections 3 and 8 came to be amended by substitution of the appropriate provisions of this Act in places where the Court-fees Act, 1870 was referred to. Therefore, the amended provisions of the Suits Valuation Act came to be repealed and reenacted as a result of this Act. Mr. Chandurkar, therefore, argues that as a result of section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, all appointments, notifications, orders, schemes rules, by-laws etc. made under the repealed enactment would be still in force, to the extent of which they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the present Act. In this manner, he says that the old rule applicable to the Vidarbha Region, which was once upon a time the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State, must be deemed to be in force.

It is not possible to accept this line of reasoning. It is true that the former Court-fees Act or the relevant part of it which was applicable to the erstwhile State of Bombay and thereafter to the reorganised States cease to be operative by the enactment of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. So far as the valuation for the court-fees is concerned, an artificial market value has been prescribed by the substantive provisions of the Court-fees Act, section 8 (v) itself. For the purpose of deciding the jurisdictional value no such artificial definition has been made by this Act. The rule made by the Madhya Pradesh Government u/s 3 of the Suits Valuation Act was to make artificial valuation even for the purpose of jurisdiction. When no artificial valuation is ever made it is the market value in the normal sense, namely, the price that a property will fetch in the market that determines the value for jurisdiction. The rule made by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Government is, therefore, clearly inconsistent with the present provisions of the Suits Valuation Act as well as the Bombay Court-fees Act. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the notification laying down an artificial valuation for jurisdiction is inconsistent with the present enactment and as such not in force. The conclusion, therefore, will be that the court-fees paid in the present suit are proper, but the refusal of the trial Judge to consider the market value for the purpose of jurisdiction is erroneous. This revision application will, therefore, be allowed and the papers will go back to the trial Judge who will determine the market value of the suit property in the light of the observation contained in this judgment and will then decide whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the suit. So far as this Court is concerned, there will be no order as to costs. Since the suit is an old one, I would direct that the trial Judge will dispose it of as early as possible.