1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against order dated 8-9-2001 of the 1st Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 22-A of 2000 by which he has been directed to value the suit for purposes of Court fee at Rs. 82,500/- and pay ad valorem Court-fee.
2. The relevant averments in the plaint are that the defendant No. 1 granted sub-lease of a portion of the plot shown in red colour in the plaint map to the plaintiff by lease-deed dated 29-7-1995 and placed him in possession thereof; the plaintiff is in possession of this land and has raised some construction thereon; the defendant No. 1 has got surrender deed dated 31-12-1999 in respect of this land registered in his favour in which a consideration of Rs. 85,500/- has been shown; the plaintiff has not signed on this deed and he is not a party to it; it is forged and the defendant No. 1 is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from that plot. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration that the said surrender deed is void and of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession on this plot.
3. It is well settled that the question of Court fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by final decision of the suit on merits. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court long back in Sathappa v. Ramanathan, AIR 1958 SC 245, and has been recently referred to by the Full Bench of this Court in Subhash Chand v. MPEB, 2000(4) M.P.H.T. 318 (FB) = 2000(3) MPLJ 522. The impugned order shows that the Trial Judge was aware of this principle and yet it has not applied it while deciding the dispute regarding payment of Court fee. He has unnecessarily referred to the pleas of the defendant No. 1 in this respect. He has gone into the question whether the plaintiff is in "settled possession" of the land or not. As already stated, the allegation in the plaint is decisive for computation of Court fee. The question of settled possession or unsettled possession is irrelevant.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that he is in actual possession of the land and he is not the executant of the surrender deed dated 31-12-1999. In such a situation he is required to pay fixed Court fee as per Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on the relief of declaration claimed by him. This point has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Santosh v. Gyansunder, 1970 MPLJ 363, where it was ruled that if the plaintiff is not bound by the decree, agreement or document he is not required to have it set aside and he can pay Court fee under Article 17 of Schedule I of the Act. In such a case Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act is not attracted.
5. For claiming the relief of permanent injunction the Court fee payable is as per Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act. The plaintiff is at liberty to put his own valuation on such a relief, of course, it should not be wholly unreasonable or arbitrary. This has been clarified in Raj Kaur v. Kinetic Gallery, 2000 (2) MPLJ 72 that in cases falling within paragraph (iv) of Section 7, the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation. The Court normally accepts the valuation put by the plaintiff if it is not too low or high. In the present case the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of injunction under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act and that valuation is Rs. 20,000/-. He has paid the Court fee accordingly. The market value of the properly is not the criterion for valuation under any of the clauses of Section 7(iv) of the Act. It is the value of the relief sought that is the basis. The plaintiff has correctly valued the suit for injunction. This would also be the value for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court for the relief of injunction's per Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. In Sabina v. Mohd. Abdul, 1997 (1) MPLJ 554, it has been held that Section 7(iv)(d) would be applicable for valuing the relief of injunction and Article 17 of Schedule II will apply in respect of Court fee payable for declaration. That is also the view taken in Ambaram v. Pramilabai, 1997(1) MPLJ 13.
6. In a case where fixed Court fee is payable as per Schedule II Article 17 of the Court Fees Act for the relief of declaration the question is what should be the value for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act is inapplicable in this respect of the Court fee is not payable advalorem but it is fixed Court fee which is payable. In respect of revenue paying land rules have been framed under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act and these rules would apply for valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Moolchand v. Khushed Bi, 1983 MPLJ 767. However, these rules do not cover the land which is not agricultural land and, therefore, not assessed to land revenue. Therefore, as observed in Raj Kaur v. Kinetic Gallery, 2000(2) MPLJ 72, in a suit claiming relief in respect of land or interest in land not liable to be assessed to land revenue, the value has to be put by plaintiff which should be actual value of the relief. It cannot be too high or too low. Normally, value of an immovable is its market value.
7. In a suit in which fixed Court fee is payable as per Article 17 Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, the market value of the immovable property, is normally the criterion for purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction. In the present case the suit for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction has been valued at Rs. 85,500/- so far as the relief of declaration is concerned, and it cannot be said to be improper. The plaintiff is not required to pay the Court fee on the valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Trial Judge has wrongly directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the value of Rs. 85,500/- and that order is set aside. The Trial Judge is advised to study the law relating to the Court fee and suits valuation by referring to the statutory provisions and the case law on those provisions and then should proceed to decide the question of valuation of the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction.
8. The revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There was no need of notice to the defendants as the question of Court fee is between the plaintiff and the State as held in Haricharan v. M. Ojha, 2000(2) JLJ 122.