TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds decision on suit valuation under Court Fees Act. Appeal dismissed, plaint to be returned.</h1> <h3>Purshottam Dass and Ors. Versus Har Narain and Ors.</h3> Purshottam Dass and Ors. Versus Har Narain and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Proper valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction.2. Whether the relief of declaration is a surplusage or a substantive relief.3. Applicability of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the second proviso.4. Whether the relief sought is with reference to any property as per the second proviso.Detailed Analysis:1. Proper Valuation of the Suit for Purposes of Court-Fees and Jurisdiction:The trial court determined that the suit was not correctly valued for court-fees and jurisdiction, holding that the value should be Rs. 54,000. The court concluded that the suit should be valued under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, read with the second proviso, as applicable to Delhi. The trial court found that the property involved was not exclusively used for Ramdwara purposes and thus capable of valuation. The valuation included Rs. 55,000 for properties in dispute, Rs. 8,000 for agricultural land, and Rs. 10,000 for cash deposits in the bank.2. Whether the Relief of Declaration is a Surplusage or a Substantive Relief:The plaintiffs argued that the suit was mainly for permanent injunction and that the declaration was surplusage. However, the court held that the relief of declaration was necessary and not surplusage. The court emphasized that the substance of the plaint should be considered rather than its form. Since the defendants were in possession of the property and claimed ownership based on a will, the plaintiffs needed to challenge this will to obtain the injunction. Thus, the relief of declaration was essential to remove the legal obstacle posed by the will.3. Applicability of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the Second Proviso:The court held that the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, as it involved a declaratory relief with consequential relief. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Mt. Zeb-ul-Nissa, which defined 'consequential relief' as some relief following directly from the declaration, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained. The court agreed that the relief of injunction was consequential to the declaration and thus, the suit was governed by Section 7(iv)(c).4. Whether the Relief Sought is with Reference to Any Property as per the Second Proviso:The court examined whether the relief sought was with reference to any property, as required by the second proviso to Section 7(iv)(c). The court held that the relief sought was indeed with reference to immovable property covered by the will, including the Ramdwara, agricultural land, and cash. The court clarified that the second proviso would apply to the extent that the relief sought was with reference to immovable property, which must be valued according to its market value. The trial court had determined the market value of the immovable property at Rs. 45,000, and the plaintiffs were entitled to value the cash separately.Conclusion:The court upheld the trial court's decision that the suit was not properly valued for court-fees and jurisdiction. The suit needed to be valued under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, considering the second proviso for immovable property. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
