Manchinna Shantamma vs Machinna Lachiah

Deshpande, J.—This case has been referred to the Full Bench under S. 7, Hyderabad High Court Act.

The facts leading to this reference are that one Lachiah filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing any injurious act to the property annexed to the plaint and for the appointment of a Receiver for the protection and the management of the property on the allegation that the defendant is his brother''s wife who after his brother''s death became the owner of the valuable property shown in lists A and B as a widow; that she is squandering the property. As such in order to preserve the same from being wasted she should be restrained from doing so by granting permanent injunction and appointment of a receiver.

In para 10 of the plaint he has valued the suit for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 2100/- and has paid an ad valorem court-fees of Rs. 194-15-0. On the objection of the defendant issues were framed as regards the jurisdiction and the valuation of the suit.

The trial court on 21-4-1950 decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff holding that this suit being for a declaration along with a consequential relief, falls under S. 4 (4) (C), Hyderabad Court-fees Act (S. 7, Cl. 4(c), Indian Court-fees Act) and the plaintiff is at liberty to put his own valuation and since he has valued the suit at Rs. 2100/- and has paid sufficient court-fees no question as regards different valuation arises nor any question as regards the deficit court fees.

Against this finding of the court the defendant filed a revision petition, which came up before the Division Bench which held that having regard to the importance of the question and the conflicting views, this revision petition be referred to the Full Bench under S. 7, Hyderabad High Court Act for the determination of the legal issues as well as the merits of the case.

On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that the valuation put upon by the plaintiff arbitrary. The plaintiff in his plaint itself has admitted that the property is a valuable property and worth some lakhs. Therefore, the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and as such under O. 7 R. 11, Civil P. C., the plaint should be rejected as undervalued. (Refer para. 10 of the plaint).

The important question for our consideration is whether the Court is authorised to interfere with any value put on a relief sought by the plaintiff in a suit which falls under S. 7(4) (c), Court-fees Act.

There is a divergence of opinion on this question between different High Courts in this country. Before we discuss the different rulings of the High Courts it is better to quote the relevant sections of the Court-fees and the Suits Valuation Acts.

Section 4(4) (c), Hyderabad Court-fees Act, corresponding to S. 7(4)(c), Indian Court-fees Act provides:

The amount of fees payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be as follows:

(iv) In Suits--

(c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

Section 2 of the Hyderabad Suits Valuation Act provides as follows:

Excepting in those cases which have been mentioned hereafter the valuation of all suits for the purposes of this Act shall be the same which is fixed for the purposes of the Court Fees Act.

This section is nearly the same as S. 8, Suits Valuation Act. It is an admitted fact that in this suit, the plaintiff, applying these sections, has put his valuation in the plaint at Rs. 2100/- to which objection is taken by the defendant. Now we have to see whether the Court can interfere in the valuation put by the plaintiff.

So far as our High Court is concerned it has consistently held throughout that the valuation put on by the plaintiff cannot be interfered with by the Court. No doubt under S. 72, Hyderabad Civil P. C., corresponding to O. 7, R. 11(b) it is provided that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the plaint within a time fixed by the Court fails to do so. This has been interpreted to mean that the Court has jurisdiction when it appears to it that the valuation put by the plaintiff is arbitrary and unreasonable. Even in those cases in which it has been so held, it is decided that no interference in the valuation will be made unless the Court on the face of it thinks that the valuation is palpably absurd and mathematically illogical or arithmetically wrong. We do not find that the valuation in this case is such. Therefore, on the merits of the case there is no ground for any interference in the valuation put by the plaintiff.

The consistent view of our High Court is that the Court has got no power to interfere in the valuation put by the plaintiff in suits falling under S. 7(iv)(c).

The first case in this respect is that of -- ''Wahidunnissa Begum v. Court of Wards'', 23 Deccan LR 253 (A). In this case the then Hyderabad Judicial Committee decided that the Court cannot go against the clear wording of the Sections of the Court-fees and the Suits Valuation Acts and cannot interfere in the valuation put by the plaintiff. The point under consideration there was also the same which is before us. The suit was for a declaration and consequential relief and it was held that the Court cannot interfere in the valuation put by the plaintiff.

This view was followed by the Pull Bench in the case of--''Meherunnissa Begum v. Mir Saadat Ali", 25 Deccan LR 283 (B). Again the same question came up before the Hyderabad Judicial Committee in the case of -- ''Mohammedi Begum v. Lalgir'', 28 Deccan LR 140 (C), and the same view was reiterated therein. The cases of -- ''Pedda Bara Reddy v. Sanjiv Reddy'', 30 Deccan LR 478 (D); -- ''Moranga Tayanna v. Itkuram Sittanna'', 31 Deccan LR 483 (E) and -- ''Kedar Nath v. Rukminibai'', 35 Deccan LR 130 (F), are also to the same effect.

In the last mentioned case there was a suit for declaring the plaintiff as a reversioner and a consequential relief to appoint a receiver in order to protect the property from being wasted. It was held therein that the suit was for a declaration with the consequential relief and according to S. 2, Suits Valuation Act the plaintiff was entitled to make his own valuation and it cannot be interfered with by the Court. Under S. 4, Hyderabad Suits Valuation Act the High Court has been given power to frame rules and the High Court has framed Rules contained in Circular No. 4 of 1318 F.

Under these rules, Rule 7 provides as follows:

Other suits for declaration which do not come within these rules the plaintiff can state his valuation for purposes of jurisdiction.

The suit under consideration comes under the purview of R. 7. So even under the Rules the plaintiff is entitled to state his own valuation, vide the last referred case of -- ''Kedar Nath v. Rukminibai (F)''.

The Counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon -- ''Shiv Singh v. Jai Singh'', AIR 1954 Hyd 220 (G), wherein the facts were that the plaintiff brought a suit for partition of three properties belonging to a joint family consisting of the plaintiff and the defendants in which the plaintiff, Shiv Singh, claimed half share. The trial Court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court as it held that the value of the lands, the house and cash was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. It was held in this case that:

Under S. 4, Hyderabad Suits Valuation Act, the High Court is empowered to frame rules laying down the mode of evaluating of suits. But no such rules have been framed in respect of possessory relief in partition cases. In the absence thereof, the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction would always be open for decision of the Courts in cases where palpably absurd and manifestly unfair value is fixed, for, it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to value the suit according to his own pleasure and thus virtually choose his own forum. The right of the plaintiff to value his relief in the plaint under S. 4(iv)(c), Hyderabad Court-fees Act must be confined to cases of evaluation for purposes of court-fees only.

This case is not at all applicable to the case under consideration because it was held therein that the suit under consideration did not fall under S. 4(iv)(b) but under some other section.

Further, it was held that as no rules under S. 4 have been framed in respect of possessory relief concerning partition the plaintiff cannot value his suit as he pleases. But such is not the case in respect of the suit under consideration. However, if a suit for partition is held to fall under S. 4 (iv) (b), we fail to see why the provisions of that clause should not be applied.

Under S. 4, Hyderabad Suits Valuation Act, rules have been framed and under R. 7 the plaintiff is allowed to put his valuation as he chooses. So this case can very well be distinguished and it can very well be said that the consistent view has not been disturbed by this ruling.

As regards the Indian High Courts, Bombay, Lahore, Madras, Rangoon, Peshawar and; Ajmer are of the view that no interference can be made in the valuation put by the plaintiff on a suit falling under S. 7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act.

In the case of -- ''Sunderbai v. Collector of Beigaum'', AIR 1918 PC 135 (H), their Lordships of the Privy Council have held that:

Where a plaintiff sues for a declaratory decree and asks for consequential relief, and puts his own valuation upon that consequential relief, then for the purposes of court-fee and also for the purposes of jurisdiction, it is the value that the plaintiff puts upon the plaint that determines both.

(a). The latest case of Bombay High Court is of -- " Burjor Pestonji Sethna Vs. Nariman Minoo Todiwalla and Others, wherein it has been held that:

The word ''determinable'' in S. 8, Suits Valuation Act means determinable as laid down in the Court-fees Act and not determinable by the party but determinable by law.

A plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation upon the relief which he seeks in the suit, if, the suit falls under S. 7C(iv), Court-fees Act, and if he has put a valuation, then that valuation is conclusive for the purpose of S. 8, Suits Valuation Act, and the jurisdiction of the Court must be determined according to the valuation so put by the plaintiff. It is not open to the Court to go behind that valuation and to consider whether the valuation is a proper valuation or not.

In this case the Privy Council case of -- ''Sunderbai (H)'' was referred to.

(4)(b). So far as the Lahore High Court is concerned the Pull Bench decision in -- Emperor vs. Ralla Ram ), is to the effect that:

The Court is bound to accept the valuation put upon his relief by the appellant however arbitrary it may be.

This conclusively supports the view which our High Court has held.

(4)(c). So far as the Madras High Court is concerned it has been held in the case of -- Sri Rajah Nayani Venkata Ranga Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Tadakamalla Sita Ramachandra Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu, , that:

Even where the valuation placed by the plaintiff upon injunctions sought for by him is palpably inadequate, the Court has no power to revise that valuation.

(4)(d). So far as Calcutta is concerned it was held in the Pull Bench case of Narayangunj Central Co-operative Sale and Supply Society Ltd. Vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed and Another, , that:

In suits to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed for, and in suits to obtain an injunction, where the court finds the relief claimed as undervalued, it is under O. 7, R. 11 (b) entitled to require the plaintiff to correct the valuation stated by him in accordance with the provisions of S. 7, Court-fees Act. But so long as there are no rules framed under S. 9, Suits Valuation Act (7 of 1887), the Court would have no standard before it on which it may regard the plaintiff''s valuation as an undervaluation, and its powers of correction would have to be exercised on that footing.

The decisions of the Calcutta High Court were conflicting but the abovementioned Full Bench case decided that so long as there were no rules framed under S. 9, Suits Valuation Act with regard to the relief claimed, the Court would have no standard by which it would be able to say that the plaintiff''s valuation was an undervaluation, and its powers of correction would have to be exercised on that footing.

In Bengal now, the Court is expressly given power to revise and determine the correct valuation, if in its opinion the subject matter of the suit has been wrongly valued. The case of -- Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur Vs. Radhashyam Marwari and Others, is relevant in this respect. In the case of - Saroje Mohan Chatterjee and Others Vs. Jiban Mull Babu and Others, the High Court held that the valuation put by the plaintiff on the plaint should, in the circumstances of the present case, be taken as final and not liable to interference by the Court under the powers conferred by it under S. 7 (iv) (c). So far as Calcutta is concerned the rules have been framed under which the Court has got jurisdiction and the powers to revise and determine the correct valuation but that is not the case in Hyderabad where no rules have yet been framed on this point.

(4)(e). The Court of Rangoon in the case of -- ''Maung Nyi Maung v. Municipal Committee, Mandalay'', AIR 1934 Rang 268 (O), and the Judicial Commissioner''s Court of Peshawar, have held that the Court has got no power to interfere with the plaintiff''s valuation.

The trend of decisions in the High Courts of Allahabad, Nagpur, Patna and the Chief Court of Sind is to the effect that the Court under O. 7, R. 11(b) has power even in cases coming under this paragraph to consider if the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and to require him to correct the valuation if it considers that the valuation is too low.

(5)(a) In the case of -- Inayat Husain Vs. Bashir Ahmad and Another ), their Lordships have held that:

Where the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is contested, the value must be determined by the Court, and where the valuation can be ascertained correctly, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to put an arbitrary value upon his claim nor can he be allowed to overvalue or undervalue his claim with a view to choose his forum.

In this case the suit was for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The suit was valued at Rs. 2500/- for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees. The correctness of the value of the assets was ascertained and it was found to exceed Rs. 20,000. The plaint was returned, the Court having jurisdiction to entertain suits upto the value of Rs. 4,000/- only, held that the Court acted rightly. From the above observation it will be evident that the suit in which the above observations were made was the suit where the value of the assets was ascertainable correctly.

Therefore, what was held in this case was that, under such circumstances the Court has got jurisdiction to interfere. The case of -- Aijaz Ahmad Vs. Nazirul Hasan and Another, is based Upon - Inayat Husain Vs. Bashir Ahmad and Another

On the contrary in the case of -- Mt. Chhatarpati v. Mt. Kalap Dei'', AIR 1932 AH 114 (R), it was held that in a suit for declaration and consequential relief of the nature of the appointment of a Receiver the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation upon the reliefs sought and such valuation determines both the Court-fees and jurisdiction. Thus, this ruing supports the contention that the valuation put upon the plaint by the plaintiff determines the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction also.

(5)(b). The trend of decisions in the Nagpur High Court is to the effect that the Court is authorised to interfere with the value put on the relief sought for by the plaintiff in a suit which falls under S. 7(iv) (c), Court-fees Act, if the valuation so put by the plaintiff appears to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

In the case of -- ''Motiram v. Daulat'', AIR 1939 Nag 50 (S), the Full Bench has observed that a Court in such a case even where the objection is taken should not lightly disturb the plaintiff''s valuation and should only do so if it is apparent that that valuation could not have been given by any reasonable man as the valuation of the relief sought.

The case of - Krityanand Singh and Others Vs. Dinu Manjhi and Others, is also to the same effect. Thus, we see that though the trend of the Nagpur decisions is towards the view that the Court has got jurisdiction to interfere in the valuation put by the plaintiff it has been held by these Courts that ordinarily the plaintiff''s valuation should not be interfered with. Only In cases where it is such that no reasonable man would put such unreasonable valuation that the Court would have to interfere in the valuation assessed by the plaintiff.

In view of the above discussion we see no reason to deviate from the consistent view held by our High Court and it is our considered opinion that the plaintiff can put any value on the plaint falling under S. 4(iv)(c), Hyderabad Court-fees Act (S. 7(iv)(c), Indian Court-fees Act) and that valuation determines the valuation for purposes both of the court-fees and jurisdiction, the court has got no jurisdiction to interfere in the value so assessed.

As the whole case has been referred to this Full Bench we have to decide the case on merits also. The plaintiff has put his valuation for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 2100/-. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the judgment of the lower Court is correct.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs and the case is remanded to the Court of first instance for further proceedings.