- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Idol Shri Shriji And Others v. Chaturbhai Mangalbhai Patel And Another
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Civil Revisions Nos. 403 & 463 of 1961)
Factual and Procedural Background
The decree-holder, Chaturbhai Mangalbhai Patel of Bombay, obtained a money decree for about Rs. 3,40,000 (inclusive of interest and costs) against Goswamini Ratan Prabha, the widow and legal representative of the original judgment-debtor, Goswami Vallabhalalji. The decree was transferred to Bhopal for execution, and execution by attachment and sale was sought in respect of certain properties specifically mentioned in the decree as belonging to the judgment-debtor.
Laxminarayan and Purushottamdas, as next friends of the plaintiff "Idol Shri 'Shriji' of Mandir Shriji, Bhopal" (the Idol), filed civil suit No. 19-A of 1961 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction to prevent execution against the suit properties. The plaintiffs alleged that the properties were dedicated as a public religious and charitable endowment (property of the Idol), that the deceased judgment-debtor was a shebait (manager) of that endowment, that he had not incurred loans for the purposes of worship or preservation of the Idol's property, and that the decree against the shebait was personal and could not be executed against the Idol's property.
The decree-holder (defendant No. 1) contested the suit inter alia on the grounds that (1) the suit was barred by Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act because the trust was unregistered, and (2) the suit was not properly valued for court-fees and jurisdiction. The trial Court found in favour of the decree-holder on the first question (Section 32) and in favour of the plaintiff on the second (valuation). Both parties sought revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Civil Revision No. 403 of 1961 was filed by the plaintiff Idol, and Civil Revision No. 463 of 1961 by the decree-holder.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the suit brought by the Idol (to obtain a declaration and injunction) is a suit "to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust" within the meaning of Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, and therefore barred because the trust is not registered.
- What is the correct valuation of the suit (for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction) where a declaration of title to attached property and a consequential permanent injunction are sought in opposition to execution of a money decree — specifically, whether Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act applies (suit under Rule 63 of Order XXI) or whether Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act governs valuation, and how the valuation should be determined.
- Procedural consequence: if the correct valuation places the suit outside the jurisdiction of the original trial court, whether the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court and the suit tried de novo.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff (Idol) — Primary Contentions
- The suit properties are the properties of the Idol, dedicated as a public religious and charitable endowment by the late Seth Moolchandji.
- The judgment-debtor, Vallabhalalji, was only a shebait (manager) of that public endowment and not the owner of the trust property.
- The shebait never incurred any loan for the purpose of worship or for the benefit/preservation of the Idol's property.
- The decree obtained against Vallabhalalji (or his legal representative Goswamini Ratan Prabha) is personal and therefore cannot be executed against the property of the Idol (the public endowment).
Defendant / Decree-holder (Chaturbhai Mangalbhai) — Primary Contentions
- The suit is barred under Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act because the public trust (if any) was not registered; Section 32 bars suits to enforce rights on behalf of unregistered public trusts.
- The suit is not properly valued for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction (the defendant alleged the value of the attached property to be about Rs. 85,000, whereas the plaintiff's valuation was minimal: Rs. 1,101).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Mishra, ILR 35 Cal 202 (PC) | Held that a suit under Rule 63 of Order XXI (i.e., suit challenging execution proceedings) attracts Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act and therefore a fixed court-fee is payable. | The Court observed that if the plaintiff had brought a suit under Rule 63 of Order XXI and lost in the executing Court, Article 17 would apply. However, the Court found that the present suit was not of that character and therefore Article 17 did not govern the instant suit. |
| Radhabai v. Madhorao, ILR (1944) Nag 783 : (AIR 1944 Nag 308) | Explains the criterion for valuation for jurisdiction: the "value to the plaintiff" — i.e., value of the decree if property value exceeds decretal amount, or the value of the property if less than the decretal amount. | The Court relied on this principle to explain how valuation for jurisdiction should be determined in the present case: if the attached property's value is less than the decree amount, then the property's value may determine jurisdiction; otherwise the decretal amount determines jurisdiction. |
| Ratansingh v. Raghurajsingh, ILR (1945) Nag 975 : (AIR 1945 Nag 30) | Authority for the proposition that a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, and that court-fees must be paid on the valuation put by the plaintiff. | The Court cited this case to support its conclusion that the plaintiff's suit (declaration + consequential injunction) is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) rather than Article 17 of Schedule II. |
| Waman v. Balwantrao, ILR (1949) Nag 195 : (AIR 1949 Nag 347) | Further authority recognizing that declaratory suits with consequential reliefs are governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. | Used with Ratansingh to justify the application of Section 7(iv)(c) to the instant suit for declaration and consequential injunction. |
| Motiram v. Daulat, ILR (1938) Nag 558 : (AIR 1939 Nag 50) (Full Bench) | Establishes that while court-fee is payable on the plaintiff's valuation, the plaintiff's valuation must not be arbitrary or capricious; if it is unreasonably low or arbitrary, the Court must correct the valuation. | The Court applied this principle to hold that the plaintiff's valuation of Rs. 1,101 for a declaration regarding property alleged by defendant to be worth Rs. 85,000 is arbitrary and requires correction; the trial Court must give the plaintiff opportunity to allege and prove a fair valuation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court addressed two principal questions: (A) whether Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act barred the suit; and (B) the correct valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction.
A. Application of Section 32 (Registration of Public Trusts)
- The Court reproduced Section 32, noting that no suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under the Act shall be heard or decided by any Court, and that this prohibition applies to claims, set-offs or other proceedings to enforce rights on behalf of such a trust.
- The Court examined the plaint and found the plaintiff's case to be that late Seth Moolchandji created a public religious and charitable endowment for the Idol, the judgment-debtor was the shebait, and the property in dispute is part of that public endowment (the property of the Idol), not the personal property of the shebait.
- Given those allegations, the Court concluded the suit was indeed "to enforce a right on behalf of the public trust" because the claim centered on title to the property forming the nucleus of the alleged public endowment; and since the trust was admittedly unregistered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, Section 32 barred the trial Court from hearing or deciding the suit.
- The Court expressly stated it could not take exception to the trial Court's finding on this point and upheld that part of the trial Court's decision.
B. Valuation for Court-fees and Jurisdiction
- The Court observed that if the plaintiff raised the valuation objection in the executing Court and lost, the matter would be a suit under Rule 63 of Order XXI; authorities (Privy Council in Phul Kumari) show that such suits attract Article 17 of Schedule II (fixed court-fee).
- However, the Court held the instant suit was not a suit for setting aside a summary decision of a civil Court (i.e., not a Rule 63 suit). Instead it was a suit for declaration and consequential injunction. The injunction claimed was a consequential relief necessarily flowing from the declaration and not an independent relief.
- Accordingly, the Court concluded Article 17 did not govern the instant suit; instead it is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, so court-fees should be paid on the valuation put by the plaintiff.
- The Court applied Motiram v. Daulat to stress that the plaintiff's valuation must be a fair valuation and not arbitrary or capricious; if the plaintiff's valuation is unreasonable in relation to the right litigated, the Court must correct it.
- In the present case the plaintiff's valuation of Rs. 1,101 for the declaration was noted as arbitrary and disproportionate to a fair value, particularly in light of the defendant's allegation that the attached property was worth about Rs. 85,000 (which is less than the decretal amount of about Rs. 3,40,000). The Court directed that the trial Court must ascertain the true value of the property after giving the plaintiff an opportunity to allege and prove the true value.
- The Court further noted Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act: the value for court-fees and for jurisdiction must be the same. Thus, if the value of the property (as determined) is such that it places the suit outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Class II, the plaint must be returned for presentation to the proper Court and the suit tried de novo there; otherwise, the trial Court will continue to hear the suit upon payment of the necessary court-fees as determined by the correct valuation.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
- The trial Court was correct in holding that the suit is a suit "to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust" under Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act and, because the trust is not registered, the trial Court could not hear or decide the suit (this point was upheld).
- The question of proper valuation for court-fees and jurisdiction must be remitted to the trial Court: the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to allege and prove the true value of the attached property; valuation must be determined in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act (not Article 17 of Schedule II), and Motiram v. Daulat requires correction of arbitrary valuations.
- Consequently, Civil Revision No. 403 of 1961 (filed by the plaintiff Idol) is DISMISSED WITH COSTS, and Civil Revision No. 463 of 1961 (filed by the decree-holder) is ALLOWED WITH COSTS. The Court awarded counsel's fee of Rs. 50 in Civil Revision No. 403 of 1961 only.
Implications / Consequences:
- Direct effect on the parties: the trial Court's finding that the suit is barred under Section 32 is affirmed; the plaintiff's challenge to execution based on the alleged trust status cannot be heard by the trial Court because the trust is unregistered.
- The valuation/court-fees and jurisdiction issue is remitted to the trial Court for a proper determination of the value of the attached property. If that valuation places the matter outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Class II, the plaint must be returned for presentation to the appropriate Court and tried de novo; if it remains within jurisdiction, the trial Court will proceed after payment of correct court-fees.
- The opinion applies existing authorities and statutory provisions to the facts and remedies before the Court; it does not purport to lay down any novel legal principle beyond the application of the cited authorities to the circumstances of this case.
Costs: Civil Revision No. 403 of 1961 dismissed with costs; Civil Revision No. 463 of 1961 allowed with costs; counsel's fee Rs. 50 in Civil Revision No. 403 of 1961 only.
1. The order in this civil revision shall also govern the disposal of civil revision No. 463 of 1961.
2. Chaturbhai Mangalbhai Patel of Bombay obtained a money decree for about Rs. 3,40,000/- inclusive of interest and costs against Goswamini Ratan Prabha widow of Goswami Vallabhalalji of Bombay as the heir and legal representative of her deceased husband, the original judgment-debtor. Thereafter, having got the said decree transferred to Bhopal for execution, he sought to execute it by attachment and sale of the suit properties. These properties have been specifically mentioned in the decree as belonging to the judgment-debtor.
3. Laxminarayan and Purushottamdas as next friends of the applicant, Idol Shri 'Shriji' of Mandir Shriji, Bhopal, filed a suit (civil suit No. 19-A of 1961) for a declaration and injunction against the aforesaid decree-holder, Chaturbhai Mangalbhai and Goswamini Ratan Prabha, as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, inter alia, on the following allegations:
(a) that the suit properties were the properties of the applicant Idol as they were dedicated to it by a public religious and charitable endowment;
(b) that the judgment-debtor Vallabhalalji was only a shebait of the said public endowment;
(c) that the said shebait never incurred any loan for the purpose of keeping up the religious worship or for the benefit and preservation of the property of the idol;
and
(d) that the decree obtained by the decree-holder Chaturbhai Mangalbhai against the shebait Goswami Vallabhalalji or Goswamini Ratan Prabha was personal against them and could not be executed against the property of the idol.
4. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the aforesaid civil suit were:
"(a) That declaratory decree be passed to the effect that plaintiff's properties described above and in Schedule 'A' being public endowment is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree against defendant No. 2 (viz., Goswamini Ratan Prabha).
(b) That permanent injunction order be passed to restrain defendant No. 1 (viz., decree-holder Chaturbhai Mangalbhai) from proceeding with the attachment of plaintiff's properties described above in suit in execution of the decree against defendant No. 2, (viz., Goswamini Ratan Prabha)."
5. The decree-holder defendant contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds:
(1) That the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act.
(2) That the suit was not properly valued for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction.
6. The first question was decided in favour of the decree-holder defendant 1, Chaturbhai Mangalbhai; while the second was decided in favour of the applicant-plaintiff. Both the parties have, therefore, come up to this Court for revision of the said order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision No. 403 of 1961 is the revision filed by the plaintiff Idol; while civil revision No. 463 of 1961 is the revision filed by defendant No. 1, decree-holder Chaturbhai Mangalbhai.
7. In order to understand the first question, the provisions of Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act may first be noted. The section says:
"(1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under this Act shall be heard or decided in any Court.
(2) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a claim or set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust."
8. The trial Court has held that the claim in suit on behalf of the plaintiff Idol was a suit 'to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust' and as the said trust was not registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, the suit could not be heard or decided by it.
9. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the aforesaid finding.
The case of the plaintiff, as disclosed in the plaint, is that the late Seth Moolchandji had not only installed the plaintiff Idol but had also created 'a public religious and charitable endowment' of which the original judgment-debtor, Vallabhalalji, became a shebait on the death of Ranchhodlalji and Gopallalji, the earlier shebaits. It is further alleged that the decree in suit being a personal decree against Vallabhalalij, it had no concern with the plaintiff Idol or the 'public endowment'; and consequently the suit property, which was the property of the plaintiff idol, could rot be attached and sold in execution of the decree against the said Vallabhalalji or his legal representative the widow Goswamini Ratan Prabha, It would thus be seen that the suit property, which is also sometimes spoken of as the property of the Idol, has its nucleus in the 'public endowment' created by the late Seth Moolchandji for 'a public religious and charitable purpose'. The property is thus alleged to be property of a public trust administered for the benefit of the plaintiff Idol as opposed to its being the personal property of the late shebait Vallabhalalji. On that allegation the instant suit must be held to be a suit 'to enforce a right on behalf of the public trust'; and as the said trust is admittedly not registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, it must further be held that it cannot be heard or decided by the trial Court as held by it.
10. The next question is with regard to the valuation of the suit property in execution of a decree against the judgment-debtor, Goswamini Ratan Prabha. If the plaintiff were to take such an objection in the executing Court and lose therein, it would be filing a suit under Rule 63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and as held by the Privy Council in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Mishra, ILR 35 Cal 202 (PC), to such a suit Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act applies and a fixed court-fee would be payable, For purposes of jurisdiction, however, the valuation would be in the words of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in ILR 35 Cal 202 (PC) (supra), 'the value to the plaintiff, which, PS pointed out by Pollock, J. in Radhabai v. Madhorao, ILR (1944) Nag 783 : (AIR 1944 Nag 308) means the value of the decree if the value of the property exceeds the decretal amount or else the value of the property if its value is less than the decretal amount. Consequently, in the instant case, if the value of the attached property were about Rs. 85,000/- as alleged by the defendant-decree-holder in his written statement, then that amount, being less than the value of the decree which is about Rs. 3,40,000/- would have governed jurisdiction.
11 and 12. But, this case cannot be governed by Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act as the suit is not for setting aside a summary decision of a civil Court. It is a suit for a declaration and an injunction, which, under the circumstances of the case, is a consequential relief and is consequently governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, The plaintiff Idol seeks a declaration of its title to the suit property. The relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant decree-holder from attaching the said property in execution of his decree is a consequential relief as it flows directly and necessarily from the declaration claimed and is not a relief independent of the relief of the said declaration. I have, therefore, no doubt that the suit of the plaintiff is for a declaration and a consequential relief; and it is well established that such a suit is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, whereunder Court-fees must be paid on the valuation put by the plaintiff; (see Ratansingh v. Raghurajsingh, ILR (1945) Nag 975 : (AIR 1945 Nag 30) and Waman v. Balwantrao, ILR (1949) Nag 195 : (AIR 1949 Nag 347)).
13. In Motiram v. Daulat, ILR (1938) Nag 558 : (AIR 1939 Nag 50) (FB), it has been pointed out that though court-fee has to be paid on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, the plaintiff's valuation must not be arbitrary or capricious, He (the plaintiff) must endeavour to fix a fair value, bearing a relation to the right litigated. If, however, the plaintiff's valuation is arbitrary and unreasonable and the disparity is so great as to show that he has not endeavoured to fix a fair value at all, the Court must correct the valuation.
14. In the instant case, the value of the property in respect of which the declaration of title is claim ed is not definitely known. The defendant decree-holder in his written statement alleges it to be Rs. 85,000/-
which is less than the value of the decree. The plain-
tiff has not given any valuation. All the same it does appear that Rs. 1,101/- at which the relief of declaration has been valued by the plaintiff is arbitrary and ma?
well be quite disproportionate to the fair value of the property. As the value of the relief to the plaintiff may well be the value of the attached property in case it is found to be less than the value of the decree, it shall have to be first definitely ascertained. The trial Court shall, therefore, now decide this question after giving the plaintiff an opportunity to allege and prove what he considers to be the true value of that property. After this valuation is correctly deter mined, the trial Court shall determine the value of the relief claimed to the plaintiff in the light of the observations made above.
15. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value of the suit for court-fees and jurisdiction must be the same. As the suit in the instant case would have to be valued at the value of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction, in case the valuation alleged by the defendant is proved to be correct, that would also be the valuation for the purpose of court-fees.
15-A. I am, therefore, of opinion that the case must go back to the trial Court for a proper determination of the value of the attached property. If the valuation to determined takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Class II, the plaint shall have to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court, where it shall be tried de novo. If, however, the case continues to be within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, it shall be further dealt with by it in accordance with law on payment of necessary court-fees.
16. In the result, civil revision No. 403 of 1961 is dismissed with costs; while civil revision No. 463 of 1961 is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/- in civil revision No. 403 of 1961 only.
Alert