The plaintiff sues, in effect, for the cancellation and delivery up of a mortgage bond for Rs. 4,000 executed by her to the defendant and for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction the plaintiff valued in the plaint the relief sought at Rs. 50 and verified the same as part of the plaint.
The District Judge is right in holding to the suit falls under section 7, paragraph IV(c) of the Court Fees Act and not paragraph IV(a), but he holds that the valuation of Rs. 50 given by the plaintiff cannot be accepted, and that the true valuation is the amount of the mortgage bond, viz., Rs. 4,000, as mentioned in the plaint. We are clearly of opinion that in cases falling under section 7, paragraph IV, the law expressly provides (and only in that class of suits) that the plaintiff should state in the plaint itself under the sanction of verification the amount at which be values the relief sought, and the Court has no jurisdiction to decline to accept the same or to revise it, a power which is limited to cases provided for by section 9 which relates to an estimate given by the plaintiff of the annual net profits of the land of the market-value of the land, house or garden as mentioned in section 7, paragraphs V and VI. If the relief prayed for consequential upon the declaration be the recovery of any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI of section 7, the mode of valuing the relief is regulated by the legislature itself in those paragraphs and in such cases the plaintiff must value the relief sought accordingly.
Turning now to the Suit Valuation Act (Act VII of 1877) it will be observed than, under section 8, the valuation given by the plaintiff in the case of suits falling under paragraph IV of section 7 of the Court Fees Act, shall also be the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. Section IX provides inter alia that it is competent to the High Court with the previous sanction of the Local Government to frame rules for the valuation of suits referred to in paragraph IV of section 7 of the Court Fees Act and for determining the jurisdiction of Courts, but no such rules have been framed applicable to the cancellation and delivery up of an instrument in writing. Until such a rule is framed the valuation given in the plaint by the plaintiff, cannot be revised [Samiya Mavali v. Minammal (1) and Guruvajamma v. Venkatakrishnama Chetti (2)).
We therefore reverse the order of the District Judge dismissing the suit and returning the plaint and remand the case to him for hearing and disposal according to law.
The costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause.