Karnataka High Court

Subrao Ramba Ravalu Kedari And ... vs Kallappa Nana Kadapure And Anr. on
10 September, 1971
Equivalent citations: AIR 1972 Kant 242, AIR 1972 Mys 242
Author: Venkataramaiah
Bench: C Honniah, E Venkataramaiah

JUDGMENT Venkataramaiah, J.

1. The question to be decided in this revision petition is whether in a suit for injunction
falling under Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the valuation of the suit for the purpose of
jurisdiction can be different from the valuation for the purpose of payment of court-fee.

2. The above revision petition has been referred to the Division Bench by Datar, J. since
he felt that there was a conflict between two decisions of this court in C. R. P. No. 1534
of 1368 (Mys) and C. R. P. No. 1791 of 1969 (reported in AIR 1972 Mys 163).

3. In the instant case, the petitioner filed a suit for the bare injunction restraining the
defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit land. The land in question was
an agricultural land assessed to land revenue. He valued the suit in the court of the Civil
Judge Belgaum, valuing the land for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 20,000/-and for
purposes of court-fee at Rs. 250/-. On going through the valuation slip produced in the
case along with the plaint, the learned Civil Judge found that there were two different
valuations furnished by the petitioner one for purposes of jurisdiction and another for
purposes of court-fee. He, therefore, called upon the petitioner to furnish a fresh valuation
slip in accordance with Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act and to pay proper court-fee
thereon, failing which, it was ordered that the plaint would be returned for presentation to
proper court on the basis of the valuation at Rs. 250/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has filed the above revision petition.

4. Sri R. U. Goulay the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the
proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act. it was permissible for the petitioner to
furnish two different valuations in respect of the suit land one for purposes of court-fee
and another for purposes of jurisdiction. Section 50(1) reads as follows:--

"Suits not otherwise provided for:--

(1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts,
specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that
purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act. shall be
the same.

Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) of Sec tion 7, the
value of land specified in Clause (a), (b) or (c) of the said sub-section, shall, for purposes
of determining the jurisdiction of courts, be the market value of such land"
The construction sought to be placed by Mr. Goulav on the proviso appears to be not
sound. In order to understand the proviso, we have got to read the provision to which it is
attached as a proviso. Sub-section (1) of Section 50 deals with cases for which no specific
provision is made in any other part of the Act or in any other law. If there is no other
provision, then according to Section 50 (1) the value for purposes of court-fee would be
the value for the purpose of jurisdiction. It is no doubt that the proviso controls Sub-
section (1) of Section 50 to the extent that the suit in question is one to which Section
7 (2) of the Act is attracted. A suit falling under Section 26 (c) of the Act is not one to
which Section 7 (2) is applicable. It is clear from the opening clause of Section 26 (c) of
the Act is beyond dispute. Section 26 deals with suits for injunction. Clause (a) of Section
26 deals with cases where the relief sought is one of injunction with reference to any
immovable property where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or
where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property. Clause (b)
of Section 26 does not deal with land. So, the present case which is one for bare
injunction falls clearly under Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act. Clause (c) of Section
26 leaves the choice to the plaintiff to value the relief sought by him at any amount
subject to the liability to pay court-fee on the basis of such valuation or Rs. 100/-
whichever is higher. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to put any value both for
purposes of payment of court-fee and jurisdiction in a case falling under Clause (c)
of Section 26 and file the suit in an appropriate court on the basis of such valuation. We
are of the opinion that this is not a case which is covered by the proviso to Sub-section (1)
of Section 50 of the Act. The introduction of the proviso by an amendment in Sub-section
(1) of Section 50 does not make any difference so far as this case is concerned, since the
proviso envisages a departure from what is contained in Section 50 (1) only in the case of
suits in which the relief claimed falls under any of those sections referred to in the
opening clause of Section 7 (2). The principle underlying Clause (c) or Section 26 of the
Act is not totally new. Similar provision is there in Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Indian Court-
fees Act, 1870. Dealing with a case arising under Section 7 (iv) of that Act. the Supreme
Court observed in S. Rm. Ar. Sp. Sath-appa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Rama Nathan
Chettiar, as follows:

"..... In other words, so far as suits falling under Section 7. Sub-section (iv) of the Act are
concerned. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the value as determinable
for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the
same. There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the
value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for
computation of court-fees and that is natural enough. The computation of court-fees in
suits falling under Section 7 (iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff
makes in respect of his claim and the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim
for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for
court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases, but it is
the value for court-fee stated bv the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this
value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount
at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court-fees that
determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa."

Following the said decision of the Supreme Court, Jagannatha Shetty, J. held in C. R. P.
No. 1791 of 1969 (reported in AIR 1972 Mys 163) that the value for purposes of court-
fee and jurisdiction with regard to matters falling under Clause (c) of Section 26 of the
Act should be the same as the value at which relief is valued by the plaintiff or Rs. 100/-
whichever may be higher. We feel that the decision in C. R. P. No. 1791 of 1969
(reported in AIR 1972 Mys 163) lays down the correct law. This Court while deciding C.
R. P. No. 1534 of 1968 (Mys) does not appear to have noticed that the suit falling under
Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act is not one to which Section 7 (2) of the Act is
applicable. We, therefore, hold that the order of the learned Civil Judge directing the
petitioner to file a proper valuation slip furnishing only one valuation both for purposes of
court-fee and for purposes of jurisdiction is right and deserves to be affirmed.

5. In the result, the revision petition, fails, and is dismissed. No costs.