Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2013 before the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Akola, seeking a declaration that they were the owners of the suit property and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit property was purchased by their predecessor, Bhalchandra Nandedkar, from defendant No.1 vide a registered sale deed dated 14-4-1977. The plaintiffs valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendants filed an application (Exhibit-46) contending that the suit property was worth more than Rs. 5,00,000/- and therefore the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial court, by order dated 4-5-2013, allowed the application and held that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, directing the plaint to be returned for presentation before the proper court. The plaintiffs challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue of whether the trial court could determine pecuniary jurisdiction based on the defendant's valuation of the suit property. The petitioners argued that the valuation of the suit for jurisdiction must be based on the relief claimed in the plaint, and the court cannot rely on the defendant's valuation. The respondents supported the trial court's order. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court had erred in law. It observed that under Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, the plaintiff's valuation of the relief for court fees is generally conclusive for jurisdiction unless it is found to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The court cannot substitute its own valuation or that of the defendant. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Valuation of Suit - For the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the valuation of the suit is to be determined on the basis of the relief claimed in the plaint and not on the basis of the valuation of the suit property as assessed by the defendant. The court cannot rely on the defendant's valuation to oust its jurisdiction. (Paras 7-9) B) Court Fees Act, 1959 - Section 6 - Valuation for Jurisdiction - Under Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, the plaintiff's valuation of the relief for the purpose of court fees is conclusive for jurisdiction unless the court finds it to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The trial court erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction based on the defendant's valuation. (Paras 7-9) C) Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - Section 8 - Determination of Value - Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 provides that the value of a suit for jurisdiction shall be the same as the value for court fees, except in certain specified suits. The trial court's order was set aside as it failed to follow this principle. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in holding that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the valuation of the suit property by the defendant, rather than the valuation of the relief claimed by the plaintiffs.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 4-5-2013, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Pecuniary jurisdiction determined by valuation of relief in plaint
- Court cannot go by defendant's valuation
- Section 6 of Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
- Section 8 of Suits Valuation Act
- 1887
