Whether court can direct plaintiff to amend valuation clause in plaint if it is vague?

 Valuation clause in the plaint cannot be vague. It must reflectas to how the suit is valued under the Suit Valuation Act and Rules framed thereunder for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court and furthermore, as to how the suit is valued under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act for the payment of court fees payable under the relevant and appropriate provisions thereof. {Para 8}

11. Plaint in paragraph 16 reproduced supra is vague andomnibus. Without observing anything on merit, therefore, it would be expedient to quash and set aside impugned order with direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to amend paragraph 16 of the plaint in order to incorporate detailed pleading for the payment of court fees as to value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees. In view of the leave so granted, petitioner shall carry out amendment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. Trial Court shall then decide application (exhibit 14) afresh after hearing both the sides bearing in mind observations made in this order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Writ Petition No. 1150 of 2014

 Lokesh  Ramraoji Navghare Vs Janardhan  Haribhau Bhisikar,

Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J

Dated : 27th June 2014

Citation: 2014 (5) MHLJ 789

Print Page

Whether forum of appeal is determined by plaintiff's valuation in plaint or by amount decreed?

There is thus no manner of doubt that it is the value of the suit, that is, the value of the subject matter thereof that determines the court in which the suit is to be filed and also determines the forum of the appeal, meaning by that the Court to which the appeal lies. Now, the Suits Valuation Act, which otherwise as observed in Ahmedbhai Kadubhai v. Badurddin, AIR 1946 Bom 356, applies only to suits and not to appeals, prescribes the mode of making the valuation of the suits for the purpose of jurisdiction and in some case, the valuation is left entirely to the discretion of the plaintiff. In such cases, it is the plaintiff s valuation in the plaint that fixes the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Court and not the amount which may be found and decreed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (PANAJI BENCH, GOA)

First Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1986

Decided On: 18.11.1988

Francisco Luis Jose D Souza  Vs. Vithal Bhadu Tamboskar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. G.F. Couto and G.D. Kamat, JJ.

Citation : AIR 1989 Bom 303

Print Page

Whether appellate court can decide issue of court fees and valuation as preliminary issue?

U/S. 12 of the Court Fees Act, the Court is requires determination of the amount of fee chargeable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit. Under sub-section (ii), whenever any such suit comes before a Court of appeal, reference or revision and the Court finds that the issue of court-fees has wrongly been decided, which is causing loss to the revenue, it shall require the party to pay additional fee as would have been payable had the question been rightly decided. Therefore, the first appellate Court u/S. 12 is competent to adjudicate the issue in respect of amount of fee payable in appeal as well as in the suit. U/S. 107(1) of the C.P.C., the appellate Court is required to decide the appeal on merit, but the C.P.C. is a procedural law and the Court Fees Act is a substantive law in respect of payment of Court-fees, therefore, substantive law will prevail over the procedural law, hence u/S. 12 of the Court-fees Act, the first appellate Court has rightly decided the issue in respect of Court-fees.

16. The issue of Court-fees is always liable to be decided as a preliminary issue because the Court-fees is payable at the time of filing of the suit and appeal. In the Court-fees Act, there is a provision of refund of Court-fees paid on the suit as well as on memo of appeal, but there is no provision for payment of Court-fees after adjudication of the suit and the appeal. The Court-fees can be exempted to an indigent person or u/S. 35 of the Court-fees Act for some special categories of plaintiffs, but in all circumstances, the fee is payable in advance and thereafter, the issue of valuation of the suit and payment of Court-fees should be decided as preliminary issue.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)

M.P. No. 5417 of 2018

Decided On: 25.02.2019

 Badrilal  Vs. Akash and Ors.

Print Page

Whether appellant is required to pay additional court fees if additional relief are claimed in Civil appeal?

In Nemi Chand v. Edward Mills co. Ltd., , dealing with the question of court-fees payable in appeal for additional relief, it was observed that a memorandum of appeal, as provided in ART. 1 OF Schedule 1, of Court-fees Act , has to be stamped according to the value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal; in other words, the relief claimed in the memorandum of appeal their Lordships observed, determines the value of the appeal for purposes of court-fees.

Bombay High Court

Francisco Luis Jose D Souza vs Vithal Bhadu Tamboskar on 18 November, 1988

Equivalent citations: AIR 1989 Bom 303, 1988 (2) BomCR 440, (1989) 91 BOMLR 570

Bench: Couto, Kamat

Print Page

Bombay HC: Jurisdiction for appeal is determined by valuation in plaint and not by result of suit

The Full Bench of this Court in Kazi Syed Saifuddin (supra) has
held that once a suit is valued and jurisdiction of the Court is determined
when the suit is instituted, same would be the valuation for the subsequent
proceedings in the suit.  Said valuation would govern the appeal and for the
purposes of forum of appeal same criteria would apply.  It was further held
that the forum of appeal is determined with reference to value of the suit and
not the amount decreed.  Jurisdiction is determined by valuation in the plaint
and not by result of the suit.  The law as laid down by the Full Bench has
been referred to in Dilip Khasbage (supra) while holding that valuation for
the   purposes   of   jurisdiction   and   court   fees   are   two   different   factors.
Similarly in Sagar Sakhare (supra) same view has been taken following the
law laid down by the Full Bench.   The Supreme Court in  Nemi Chand
(supra) has held that a memorandum of appeal has to be stamped according
to value of the subject matter of dispute in appeal and the relief claimed in
the memorandum of appeal determines the value of the appeal for purposes
of court fee.  
It is thus obvious that what is material is the valuation of the suit
in the plaint and the jurisdiction has to be determined in that context.  Result
of the suit would not govern determination of forum of the appeal.    
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION  NO.5828 OF 2014

Dr Pramod Prakashchandra Banait, vs­  Dr Avinash Prakashchandra Banait

CORAM  :  A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED: SEPTEMBER 09, 2015.
Citation:2016(3) MHLJ 809:2016(4) ALLMR 249

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court judgment on valuation of suit for cancellation of sale deed

In a suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed for a specified amount, the Court Fee has to be paid on that amount and not on the basis of the market value of the property at the presentation of the plaint. Section 37 of the Court Fees Act which deals with the suits for cancellation of decrees etc. if interpreted in the light of the expression “save as otherwise provided” used in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, it becomes clear that the rule enshrined therein is a clear departure from the one contained in Section 7 read with Sections 24, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 42 and 45, which provide for payment of Court Fee on the market value of the property. Section 37 is stand alone provision, wherein the legislature has designedly not used the expression “market value of the property”. Section 37 of the Court Fees Act contains a special rule for valuing the property for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction and thus the expression “value of the property” used in Section 37 cannot be substituted with the expression “market value of the property”.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2456-2457 OF 2014

Polamrasetti Manikyam Vs Teegala Venkata Ramayya & Anr. 

Citation;2014 (2) ALL MR92, SC 2014III AD (S.C.) 426, AIR2014SC1286, 2014(2) AKR 189,  2014 (103) ALR 687, 2014(2)ALT56, 2014(2)CTC458, 2014-2-LW534, 2014(2)SCALE523
Dated;February 19, 2014.

Print Page

Mere change of forum is not a prejudice within meaning of Section 11 of Suits Valuation Act.

42. In the case of Kiran Singh & ors v. Chaman Paswan 

& ors, reported in AIR 1954 SC 340. The question involved was 

whether the judgment delivered by the District Court in appeal 

should be treated as a nullity in view of the valuation of the suit 

which is ultimately determined. The Apex Court took into 

consideration the provisions of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation 

Act, and Sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and it 

has been held that the policy underlines Sections 21 and 99 of the 

Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. In 

paras 12 and 15 of the said decision, it is held that a mere change 

of forum is not a prejudice within the meaning of Section 11 of the 

Suits Valuation Act.

Print Page