Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Kri..., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7425 of 1987, decided on August 10, 1987

Disposition

remanded

Advocates

L.N Sinha, Senior Advocate (A. Saran, Advocate, with him), for the Petitioner.

Judges

Justice B.C. Ray
Justice A.P. Sen

Acts

Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870
Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870
Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration that four lease deeds (dated 15 December 1948, 1 July 1950, 24 April 1951 and 26 November 1952) executed by one Nagendra Prasad Bhagat in favour of Defendant 1 were illegal, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff. Consequential relief for recovery of possession with mesne profits was also prayed for. The suit was valued by the plaintiff on the basis of the rent payable for the land.

The defendant filed a written statement and subsequently raised preliminary objections asserting that the suit had been undervalued and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

The trial court held that the matter fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, accepted the plaintiff’s valuation, and ruled that the court fee paid was proper.

The defendant’s revision petition (Civil Revision No. 1385 of 1985) before the Patna High Court was referred to a Full Bench to decide whether the court could examine the plaintiff’s valuation under Section 7(iv)(c). The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that while a plaintiff normally chooses the valuation, a court may intervene if the valuation is patently arbitrary. Finding the valuation reasonable, the High Court dismissed the revision.

The defendant then filed the present special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, in a suit for declaration with consequential relief under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, a court has jurisdiction to examine and revise the valuation stated by the plaintiff.
Whether the valuation placed by the plaintiff—based on the rent payable for the land—was arbitrary, unreasonable or demonstratively understated.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245	In suits under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff may ordinarily fix the valuation for court-fee and jurisdiction, subject to correction where the valuation is arbitrary or unreasonable.	The Supreme Court reiterated that the plaintiff’s valuation must be accepted unless it is demonstratively arbitrary, thereby supporting dismissal of the petition.
Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, (1980) 1 SCC 616	The court may interfere with the plaintiff’s valuation only if it is manifestly understated; otherwise, it is to be accepted.	Used in conjunction with Sathappa Chettiar to affirm that the trial court and High Court rightly accepted the valuation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that its own prior decisions conclusively govern valuation disputes under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Those decisions establish two principles: (1) the plaintiff’s valuation is generally controlling for both court-fee and jurisdiction; and (2) judicial interference is permissible only where the valuation is patently arbitrary, unreasonable, or reflects deliberate undervaluation.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that the plaintiff valued the leasehold interest on a rental basis—a method the trial court and High Court both found reasonable. No evidence suggested deliberate undervaluation or arbitrariness. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts correctly accepted the valuation and that there was no substantive question warranting the grant of special leave.

Holding and Implications

Special Leave Petition DISMISSED.

Immediate effect: the Patna High Court’s dismissal of the defendant’s revision petition stands, and the plaintiff’s valuation—accepted by the trial court—remains undisturbed. Broader implication: the decision reaffirms, without expanding, the existing Supreme Court jurisprudence on the limited scope of judicial review over valuations fixed by plaintiffs under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. No new precedent was set.

Show full summary ...

Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, Through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad And Meshwar Prasad And Another

B.C Ray, J.— This is a petition on special leave against the judgment and order dated January 11, 1987 of the High Court of Judicature of Patna passed in CR No. 1385 of 1985.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that pattas dated December 15, 1948, July 1, 1950, April 24, 1951 and November 26, 1952 executed by Nagendra Prasad Bhagat in the name of Defendant 1 were illegal, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff. There was also a prayer for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The suit was valued on the basis of the rent-payable for the land. The defendant filed a written statement and thereafter raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and also challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. The trial court has held that the suit is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the plaintiff has rightly valued the leasehold interest created by the lessee. The plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation of the reliefs claimed. The valuation, it has been held, was not arbitrary and unreasonable and as such it was held that the plaintiff has rightly valued the suit and proper court fee has been paid thereon.

3. Against this judgment and order a revision petition being Civil Revision No. 1385 of 1985 was filed in the High Court, Patna. The said revision petition was admitted and thereafter it was referred to the Full Bench for decision of the question whether in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under clause (iv)(c) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the court has jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff has an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on the relief claimed in such a suit. It has been held by the High Court considering several decisions including the decisions of this Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245, 1958 Mad LJ (Cri) 148, 1958 SCR 1024 as well as Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar (1980) 1 SCC 616, AIR 1979 SC 989, (1979) 3 SCR 385 that the plaintiff has the right to value the relief claimed according to his own estimation and such valuation has to be ordinarily accepted. The plaintiff however, has not been given the absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where the plaintiff manifestly and deliberately underestimates the relief the court is entitled to examine the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff and to revise the same if it is patently arbitrary or unreasonable. The High Court held that the Munsif came to a clear finding that the valuation given by the plaintiff was not at all arbitrary or unreasonable and as such there was no scope for interference with the said order under revision. The revision application was so dismissed.

4. The instant special leave petition has been filed against the said order. We have heard the learned Counsel and in our considered opinion we do not find any merit in the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner. It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245, 1958 Mad LJ (Cri) 148, 1958 SCR 1024 and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar (1980) 1 SCC 616, AIR 1979 SC 989, (1979) 3 SCR 385 that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. The plaintiff has valued the leasehold interest on the basis of the rent. Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the courts below, is reasonable and the same is not demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate underestimation of the reliefs. We, therefore, do not find any reason to grant special leave to appeal asked for in the petition as the order passed in the said revision is unexceptionable. The special leave petition is therefore dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.

Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Kri...