Suit valuation for pledged shares must follow market value, not residuary relief framing, for court-fee and jurisdiction.

Where the plaint itself shows that the subject-matter is movable property with an ascertainable market value, the suit must be valued on that basis for court-fees and jurisdiction, even if framed as an injunction or mandatory return of pledged shares. The Court held that the substance of the claim, not the plaintiffs' characterisation or the defendants' disputed stand, governs valuation, and rejected reliance on residuary valuation provisions. On that footing, the suit attracted the relevant court-fee provision and the City Civil Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; the revision was allowed, the order was set aside, and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was correctly valued for court-fees and, on that basis, whether the City Civil Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it.

Analysis: The plaint sought both an injunction and mandatory return of pledged shares. The shares were admitted in the plaint to have a substantial market value, and the claim was therefore not a suit for an unvalued or residuary relief. On the pleadings, the real controversy was recovery of movable property having market value, or at least prevention of monetary loss, and not a subject-matter falling within the residuary provision relied on by the plaintiffs. The Court rejected the attempt to treat the defendants' stand as an admission of the plaintiffs' valuation case and held that the substance of the suit had to be examined on the plaint and the disputed defence.

Conclusion: The suit attracted Section 6(iii) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, or alternatively Article 7 of Schedule I, and the City Civil Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the proper court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the plaint itself shows that the subject-matter consists of movable property having an ascertainable market value, the suit must be valued accordingly, and a court cannot assume residuary valuation merely because the relief is framed as injunction or the parties dispute the underlying liability.

---