Jurisdiction And Proper Valuation Of Court Fees Crucial In Suit For Declaration: Chhattisgarh Hc In Smt. Urvashi Bai Sharma & Another V. Smt. Indumati Sharma & Others.

CASE TITLE:

Smt. Urvashi Bai Sharma & Another v. Smt. Indumati Sharma & Others. 

DATE OF ORDER:

15th May 2015

BENCH:

Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

PARTIES:

Petitioner- Smt. Urvashi Bai Sharma, Ashok Sharma

Respondents- Smt. Indumati Sharma, Ramadhar Sharma, Ramsahay Sharma and Parmeshwar Sharma

SUBJECT:

The respective case involves an appeal against the order made on 11th February 2014 in a civil suit where the Additional District Judge of Mungeli decided to return the plaintiff’s complaint. The reason behind this was the court found a discrepancy in the way the value of the case’s jurisdiction was determined. 

IMPORTANT PROVISION:

• Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act
• Section 7 (v) (a) of the Court Fees Act
• Article 17 of the Schedule -II of the Court Fees Act
• Order 7 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code
• Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act

BRIEF FACTS:

• A suit was filed by the appellant (widow of Ishwar Prasad) against the respondents. The parties are shown to be relatives and the property is claimed through Ishwar Prasad who died on 20th May 1994. With respect of the suit property, the appellant have its possession after death of her husband and along with her daughters the appellant’s name were recorded in revenue records by an order.
• It is contended that later, the respondents have recorded their names with respect to the suit property and that the appellant’s daughters’ names were henceforth deleted. Thus, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was sought.
• The Cause of Action arose on 28th May 1994 when respondents applied to the Tahsildar and got their names recorded, subsequently further acts of the respondents included deletion of appellant’s daughters name on 20th September 2009 and an application for partition on 28th November 2011.
• The appellant sought a declaration of the suit property to be considered jointly owned and the declaration was sought under Article 17 of the Court- fees Act along with a request for permanent injunction was pleaded. 
• The respondents filed an application under Order 7 rule 10 of the CPC arguing that the suit falls under the jurisdiction of First Civil Judge Class- II. It was requested the suit shall be dismissed to be filed in proper court of jurisdiction.

ARGUMENT FROM THE APPELLANT:

• The learned counsel of the appellant contends that the suit’s valuation was determined based on Schedule II, Article 17 (iii) of the Court fees act. A fixed court fee was correctly paid to cover this component because the main purpose of the lawsuit is to obtain a declaration, which is covered by Article 17(iii) of Schedule-II.
• The term "consequential relief," according to the counsel, is one that results directly from the declaration, has an undetermined value, and cannot be claimed separately from the declaration as a separate and substantial relief. This is according to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act.
• The counsel emphasizes the rule that a court cannot intervene based merely on objections lacking substantive supporting material by citing cases known as "1988 M.P.L.J. 246" and "2000(4) M.P.H.T. 318,”, to support this point.

ARGUMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT:

• The respondent expresses doubt regarding the suit's jurisdiction and valuation in response to the appellant. The court recognizes the respondent's argument that the statement in the lawsuit concerning agricultural land, which called for court fees based on 20 times the land revenue, was incorrect.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The jurisdictional issue and the appropriate assessment of court costs for an action seeking a declaration and injunction are both carefully considered by the court in its review of this case.
• The court evaluates the arguments put forward by the appellant and respondent as well as the pertinent legal rules and earlier rulings.
• The appellant's claim that the lawsuit principally seeks a declaration, coming under the purview of Article 17(iii), and that the specified court fee has been properly paid are both acknowledged by the court.
• The court acknowledges the merit of the appellant's citation of earlier cases "Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar" and "Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad & Others," which highlight the idea that court costs should be calculated in accordance with the relief requested in the plaint, regardless of subsequent developments. Furthermore, the appellant's reading of the phrase "consequential relief" is emphasized, emphasizing relief resulting directly from the pronouncement.
• The court recognizes the respondent's argument that the statement in the lawsuit involving agricultural land, which called for court fees based on 20 times the land revenue, was incorrect. In relation to the estimated land revenue, the court takes into account the respondent's claim about potential overvaluation and exorbitant court fee payment.
• The court also takes note of the respondent's argument that the injunction should not be used to artificially increase court costs as a "consequential relief".
• The court then continues to analyze pertinent legal provisions, including Article 17 of Schedule-II and Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. The court emphasizes the Supreme Court's position in "Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh & Others," holding that court costs for actions seeking declaratory judgments with consequential relief should be determined by the value assigned to the relief in the plaint. In addition, the court clarifies how Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act affects lawsuits brought under Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act.

CONCLUSION:

• The court finds in favor of the appellant's claims after carefully examining the arguments, regulations, and precedents. The court stresses that the market worth of the property does not determine jurisdiction and adds that the valuation for jurisdiction must coincide with the plaintiff's valuation for court costs.
• The Additional District Judge's jurisdiction is upheld since the appellant complied with the specified court fee requirement set out in Article 17 of Schedule-II. The respondent's claim that the injunction has caused artificially inflated court costs is rejected by the court.
• As a result, the decision by the lower court to return the plaint is quashed. The court orders the parties to keep the Additional District Judge involved in their case. In the end, the appeal is upheld without incurring any fees.