Ajmer Singh Etc. v. Behal Singh Etc.

Gurnam Singh, J. - Ajmer Singh, the present petitioner, filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mansa, for possession of agricultural land measuring 87 kanals 15 marlas, situated in village Man Bibrian, Tehsil Mansa and for declaration that the declaratory decree dated April 7, 1973, got passed by his son, Nazir Singh, defendant No. 4, in favour of his sons, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in capacity as his General Attorney, by making a wrong statement, was void and had no effect on his rights. 2. A preliminary objection with regard to the value of the suit for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction was raised by the defendants and the trial Court, relying on Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Parshad and others, AIR 1973 SC 2384, held that in such a suit, the property should be valued ad valorem. As neither party had pleaded the market value of the suit property, the trial Court also framed the following additional issue :- "What is the market value of the suit property ?" 3. Ajmer Singh, the plaintiff, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the learned Subordinate Judge, has filed this civil revision. 4. Undisputedly the case is covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fee Act (hereinafter to be called the Act). Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act runs as under :- "to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed." In the suits mentioned in Section 7(iv) of the Act, the plaintiff is to state the amount at which he values the relief sought. 5. In Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, the following provisions have been added in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act, after the word `sought' :- "(a) Provided that the minimum Court-fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees : (b) Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this section." Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act reads as under :- "(v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens - according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be - where the subject-matter is land, and - (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled - ten times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently - five times the revenue so payable; (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and no profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint - fifteen times such net profits : but where no such net profits have arisen therefrom - the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above-mentioned - the market value of the land." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act applies in this case, so according to the proviso added by Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, the valuation of the property shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act which comes to ten times the land revenue so payable. Thus, according to him, the Court-fee paid, was correct. He placed reliance on Gurdial Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, 1971 PLR 716 (FB) and Narian Singh v. Sher Singh and others, AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 185. In both the abovesaid authorities, it has been held that the cases which are covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and in which the subject-matter is land permanently assessed to land revenue, the Court-fee payable is ten times the land revenue. 7. The facts in Shamsher Singh's case (supra), were that a father executed a mortgage-deed on July 13, 1962, in favour of the appellant of the said case of a property of which he claimed to be the sole owner, for a sum of rupees sixteen thousand. The mortgagee filed a suit on the foot of that mortgage and obtained a decree. When he tried to take out execution proceedings for the sale of the mortgaged property, respondents 1 and 2, the sons of the mortgagor, filed a suit for a declaration that the mortgage executed by their father in favour of the mortgagee was null and void and ineffectual as against them as the property was a joint Hindu family property, and the mortgage had been effected without consideration and family necessity. The sons paid a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 19.50 and the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was given as rupees sixteen thousand. A preliminary objection was raised by the mortgagee that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. The Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiffs (the sons) to pay Court-fee on the value of Rs. 16,000/-. The Court-fee not having been paid, the plaint was rejected. The plaintiff's carried the matter upon appeal before this Court and it was held that there was no consequential relief involved and that the plaintiffs were not bound by the mortgage. In appeal in the Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Judges held that the consequential relief was involved and ad valorem Court-fee would be necessary. 8. In the instant case, the plaintiff-petitioner has sought a declaration and also wants to get the decree; passed against him and in favour of defendants 1 and 2, set aside. It has been rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a suit with a `consequential relief', and as such it was for the plaintiff-petitioner to state the amount at which he valued the relief sought. In Shamsher Singh's case, the property involved was a joint Hindu family property and apparently was not land, permanently assessed to land revenue. The mortgage amount was Rs. 16,000/-, and the decree passed on the basis of the mortgage was to be set aside. So, the ad valorem Court-fee on Rs. 16,000/- was ordered to be paid. The provisos added to Section 7(iv)(c)of the Act were not involved in that case and as such the facts in the present case are distinguishable from the facts of that case. 9. The present suit is a suit for possession of agricultural land. It is not disputed that the suit land is permanently assessed to land revenue. As the suit is covered by the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, so according to the second proviso added to it, the valuation for purposes of Court-fee has to be assessed in view of Section 7(v) of the said Act, which will be ten times of land revenue. In Gurdial Singh's case (supra), it was held that in cases which were covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, Court-fee had to be paid at ten times the land revenue assessed on the land. This view was further endorsed in Narain Singh v. Sher Singh and others (supra). The correct position, therefore, is that the valuation for purposes of Court-fee in the instant case has to be assessed according to Section 7(v) of the Act, and as the land in dispute is permanently assessed to land revenue, the Court-fee has to be paid at ten times the land revenue of the land. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the order under revision is set aside and this civil revision is accepted. The costs of this civil revision will follow the suit. Petition accepted.