Shah Mali vs Anwar Dar and others

(1) The question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the valuation fixed by the plaintiffs for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is

adequare. The lower appellate court has decided this issue against the plaintiffs holding that the valuation put by the plaintiffs in the plaint is absurd

and outrageous It has observed that the plaintiffs have not paid court fees even for the relief of declaration under Schedule II Article 17 (iii) of the

Court Fees Act and as the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their plaint are for declaration and injunction and also for cancellation of the document

therefore the plaintiffs should have fixed the valuation according to the value of the subject matter of the suit and the case being governed by

Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, court fees payable was advalorem. The learned District Judge has accordingly ordered that the plaint be

returned to the plaintiffs for presenting the same in the competent court after correctly valuing the same both for purposes of court fees and

jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiffs have come up in further appeal before this court.

(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3) In order to appreciate the case before us it is important to examine the averments made in the plaint and also to look at the substance of the

plaint as a whole. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in the court below for declaratian to the effect that they have completed their title over the suit land

measuring 36 kanals 11 marlas bv prescription and have become owners They have also prayed that the impugned sale deed wherebv the

defendants appellants alienated the suit land be cancelled and that a perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the plaintiff?

possession over this land be granted. From the plaint it appears that the plaintiffs have prayed for distinct reliefs namely ; for declaration of their title

with permanent injunction and for cancellation of the impugned sale deed Para No 9 of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs have valued all these

reliefs only at Rs. 5/ which is indeed fantastic According to the law on the subject the plaintiff has to value each relief sought by him separately and

this he has to do in accordance with the Suits Valuation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In the instant case the plaintiffs have made a prayer

for declaration of their title with injunction. They have also prayed for cancellation of the instrument. Thus these are two distinct reliefs. The first

relief of declaration and injunction is a consequetial relief and the relief of injunction is dependent on grant

ing of declaration by the court. Therefore this prayer as a whole involves consequential relief and is governed by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court

Fees Act. Similarly relief of cancellation of an instrument is also a consequential relief. The Court of the in any by be to is not for have In as on or

such their it a law which an Rules.correct fix difficult those Act Fees 17 Art. II Schedule specified suits Act, Valuation Suits 12 Rule Under subject. rules warranted 5 Rs. omnibus

put plaintiffs plaint reliefs. two these separate

(4) In the instant case the value of the suit land will determine the jurisdictional value of the suit. Again for the relief of cancellation of the document

the plaintiffs ""have to look to the subject matter of the instrument and have to bear in mind the value of the subject matter of the deed. It will be this

value of the subject matter of the instrument that will determine the jurisdiction in the case. Because the relief of cancellation is a consequential

relief, therefore, the value of court fees and jurisdiction is to be the same. In these circumstances the plaintiffs will have to refix the valuation for

both the reliefs sought in accordance with the Rules on the subject.

(5) In my opinion therefore the plaintiffs have not valued their reliefs properly. Counsel for the plaintiffsappellants has, however, submitted that he

be given time so that he may amend his plaint and value his reliefs correctly. He has further submitted that he may even delete some relief and for

that he may be given the option of amending his plaint.

(6) I would, therefore, while dismissing this appeal and affirming the judgment of the first appellate court, direct that the plaintiffs may amend their

plaint at their option and put the valuation regarding the reliefs which they seek in accordance with the rules on the subject and also in the light of

the observations made above. If the jurisdictional value of the amended plaint exceeds the pecuniary limits of the trial court then in that case the

plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presenting itbefore the competent forum. The appellants will pay Rs. 200.00 as consolidation costs to the

other side which will be deposited in the court.