Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. ... vs Vimla Panna Lal
1986 Latest Caselaw 151 Del

JUDGMENT

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

(1) This is an appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against the decision of learned Single Judge dated 24th September, 1985.

(2) Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant (defendant) had claimed two reliefs in his application, I.A. No. 5279185 The first relief was that Issue No. I, as to whether the suit of the plaintiff is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if not, to what effect, be treated as a preliminary issue; and, secondly, that the plaint be rejected as the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally under-valued the relief for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction

(3) In the plaint the suit is valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs 25,00,0001- and for purposes of court fee at Rs. 500.00 .

(4) Before the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the defendant referred to various paragraphs of the plaint with a view to show that the plaintiffs have arbitrarily valued the suit for purposes of court fee and he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in then case of A..KA..CT.V.CT. Meenakshisundrar Vs. A.KA.CT.V.CT. Venkatachalam Chettiar wherein the provisions of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 along with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act came up for consideration. Learned Single Judge, however, followed the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheila Devi & others Vs. Sh. Kishan Lal Kalra & others, 2nd 1974 Delhi (II) 491(2). Learned Single Judge took the view that the Supreme Court in its judgment was construing the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court- fees and Suits Valuation Act, the provisions of which are not similar to the provisions of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act. Learned Single Judge was also of the view that the plaintiff was not in a position to estimate correctly the amount which she may be entitled to, after the rendition of accounts and the valuation fixed for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction cannot be said to be unreasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case. in view of these findings, learned Single Judge held that, "Suit cannot be said to have been. under valued" and in this view of the matter, the application of the appellant was dismissed.

(5) Before us also, Mr. S. K. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheila Devi & others (supra) requires reconsideration and he insisted in submitting that the provisions with which the Supreme Court was dealing are similar to the one in Delhi and, therefore, the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi and, therefore, the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court require reconsideration.

(6) The Full Bench decision of this Court had noticed the consistent views of High Courts of Lahore, Bombay, Madras, Mysore, Rangoon, Hyderabad and the Judicial Commissioners Court of Peshwar. In the Lahore High Court the consistent view has been taken right from 1913 including the Full Benches decision in the cases of Barm and other v. Lachman & others. 111 p.m. 1913, page 4 (Full Bench). Rattigan, Beadon and Agnew, JJJ., (3) Mt. Zeb-ul-nisa and others V. CHoudhury Din Mohd. & others, Air 1941 Lahore 47(4). Emperor V. Ralla Ram. Air 1946 Lahore (5) Ghulam quadir V. Bulagi Mal and Sons, Air 1949 Lahore 1(5) Karma Ilahi V. Muhammad Bashir, Air 1949 Lahore 116(7) and Visliwa Nath and another V. Smt. Sita Bai Anand. besides numerous other judgments.the Bombay High Court's view was identical with the view of the Lahore High Court in the three decisions noticed in the Full Bench decision, namely. Burjor Pesponji Satna V. Mariman Minoo Todiwalla. , ChaglaCT. and Dixit J.. Raidhar Buwa V. Umakant Bumrao, , J. R. Mudholkpr. . I. and Chhottalal Kalidas V. Laxmandas Mavaram, . Shah and Gohale The Madras High Court (Full Bench) decision was given as late as in the case or Chelasami Ramiah V. Chelasami Ramasami. 18 Indian Cases Courts and distinguished their decisions. The Full Bench had also noticed the observations of Hidayatulla, C.J. in the case "NOW,it is well known that in a sun for accounts, the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after the taking of accounts. He may do so if he is able to; but if he is not, he can put a tentative valuation upon his suit for accounts taking care that the valuation adequate and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case But, the rule also obtains that if the amount which is found is larger than. the amount at which he stated his tentative valuation, he must file the appeal against the larger amount and in the forum before which an appeal of that valuation can go. This rule does not apply where the amount decreed is below the valuation in the original Court"

(7) After noticing the entire case law, the Full Bench of this Court took the view that paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks, and the court has no power to interfere with plaintiff's valuation for purposes of court fees. In view of Section 9 of Suits Valuation Act, the value for purposes of jurisdiction follows the value fixed for purposes of court fees. The value for purposes of jurisdiction was, however, subject to rules, if any, framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act.

(8) Relevant part of Section 7(iv) of the Court fees Act, 1870 reads as under :- "7(IV)In suits- (a) for movable property where the subject matter has no market value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title; (b) to enforce the right to share in any property on Ihe ground that it is joint family property; (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed; (d) to obtain an injunction; (e) for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and (f) for accounts- According to the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought."

SECTION 8 and 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, read as under :-

"8.Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs v, vi and ix, paragraph x, clause (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act. 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.

9.When the subject-matter of suits of any class, other than suits mentioned in the Court-fees Act, 1870; Section 7, paragraphs v and vi and paragraph x, clause (d), is such that in tile opinion of the High Court it does not admit of being satisfactorily valued, the High Court may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, direct that suits of that class shall, for the pin-poses of the Court- fees Act, 1870, and of this Act and any other enactment for the time being in force, be treated as if their subject matter were of such value as the High Court thinks fit to specify in this behalf."

(9) So far as suits for accounts are concerned. Punjab High Court bad framed rules under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, namely, Rules 3 and 4 for fixing court fee and jurisdictional value for a suit for accounts. Normally in view of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, value for purposes of jurisdiction follows the value fixed for purposes of court fee but where rules are framed under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, it will be such value for purposes of jurisdiction as is provided for in the rules. Rules 3 and 4 of the rules framed under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act are relevant for our purpose. Rule 3 reads as under :-

"Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for accounts only not being :--

(i) Suits to recover the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant. (ii) Suits of either of the kinds described in Order Xx, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. Value :- (a) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1870..... Rs. 200.00 (b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 . . Rs. 1000.00 While Rule 4 reads as under :- "4(1)Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint seeks to recover the amount which may be found to the plaintiff on taking unsettled accounts between him and defendant; (ii) Suits of either of the kinds described in Order Xx, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure :- Value for the purposes of court fee..... as determined by the Court-fees Act, 1870 Value for the purposes of jurisdiction for the purpose of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the Punjab Courts Act. 1918, as valued by the plaintiff in the plaint subject to determination by the Court at any stage of the trial."

(10) Prithvi Raj, J. had held in the case of The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Hansa Chemical Pharmacy, 2nd (.1979) Ii Delhi, 236(14) that these rules which are embodied in Chapter III-C of the Rules and Orders (Volume 1) of the Punjab High- Court are applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi. Therefore in view to these Rules, the plaintiff could put his estimated valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. The plaintiff valued this suit for purposes of jurisdiction at a figure which brought this suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The grievance is that the value for jurisdiction is higher but that makes no practical difference since the value for purposes of court fee could be different in view of the Rules being framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and even if the value is fixed for jurisdiction at a higher figure jurisdiction will remain this Court. So far as value for the purposes of court fee is concerned, learned single Judge rightly followed the decision of the Full Bench of this Court referred to earlier.

(11) It was contended by Mr. Mehra that Outer 7 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that the Court can question the valuation put by the plaintiff while valuing his relief for purposes of court fees. Rule 2 3f Order 8 of the Code reads as under :- "R-2.Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed. But. where the plaintiff sues for manse profits, or for an amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, the plaint shall state approximately the amount sued for."

(12) The Full Bench had been at pains to consider this Rule as well as Rule 11 of Order 7 and even the provisions of Order 2.0 Rules 12, 16 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(13) The Full Bench noted the various words used in various parts of Order 7 of the Code. Order 7 rule l(i) of the Code speaks of the "value of the subject matter". Order 7 Rule 2 of the Code speaks of the "amount sued for". Paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act speaks of, "the amount at which he values the relief". The Full Bench considered the entire scheme of Order 7 of the Code along with provisions of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and came to the conclusion that that paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act gives a right to the plaintiff to place any value that he likes on the relief he seeks and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's value. It was also held that this view is quite inconformity with the nature of title suit mentioned in clauses (a) to (T) of paragraph (iv) of section 7 of the Court-fees Act.

(14) Mr. Mehra referred to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K.A.CT.V.CT. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A.V.CT. Venkatachalam Chettiar.  This case related to the proper construction of provisions of section 35(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, Xiv, of. 1955. Section 35(1) of the said Act is as follows :-    "In a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount sued for as estimated in the. plaint."  

(15) While construing this provision, the Supreme Court approved the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Chillakuru Chenchurami Reddy v. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy, I.L.R, 1969 A.P., 1042.(16)   

(16) It will again be noticed from the said judgment that the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was) Mr. Justice Seshachalapathi and Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy (as Their Lordships then were) was considering the provisions of Sections 11, 32 and 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits valuation Act (VII of 1956) and had taken the. view that the Court could enquire into the valuation put by the plaintiff for purposes of court fees. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court noticed the conflicts which were raised in that part of the country and also noticed the Statement of objects and reasons of the Bill which was later on enacted as Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and suits valuation Act (VII of 1956). The objects and reasons are quieted at page 1055 of the Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court, which read as under :-    "The provisions relating to court-fees and those relating to valuation of suits are so interlocked that it is considered expedient to have both of them on acted in a single Act. The method of valuing suits forms one Chapter in tills Bill, the main purpose of which is to place the said law on a proper basis. It should not be left to the choice of a party to a litigation whether a suit should be decided by the Court of a District Munsif or a superior Court, nor, should the determination and payment of the proper court fee be left to the ingenious manipulations of the litigant, x xxx Chapter Iv prescribes the method of computation of fee. Various classes of suits are dealt with independently in separate clauses and there is a residuary clause relating to suits not otherwise provided for. Fee is made payable not only by a plaintiff who seeks and obtains relief but also by a defendant who seeks and obtains affirmatives relief, la prescribing rates of fee, care is taken to see that mere alterations in the language of the pleadings do not result in any difference in the rate of fee payable. Further the provisions are framed that the fee payable is in proportion to the value of the subject-matter in dispute. Chapter V provides for valuation of suits. It has been made obligatory on the courts to determine issues regarding court-fee and valuation before the hearing of the suit."  

(17) Sections 32 and 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and suits valuation Act (VII of 1956) are also quoted in the Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court which lead as under :- "32.(1) In a suit for accounts. Fee shall be computed on the amount estimated in the plaint. (2) Where the amount payable to the plaintiff as ascertained in the suit is in excess of the amount as estimated in the plaint, no decree directing payment of the amount as so ascertained shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount so ascertained, is paid. (3) Where in any such suit it is found that any amount is payable to the defendant, no decree shall be passed in his favor until he pays the fee due on the amount. (4) Whether 'or not a decree is passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the fee payable under either of the said sub-sections shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear or land revenue. 33. (1) In a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts or for accounts of dissolved partnership, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiff's share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff. (2.) If the value of the plaintiff's shars as ascertained in the suit exceeds the value as estimated in the plaint, no decree, or where there has been a preliminary decree, no final decree shall be passed in favor of the plaintiff, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted towards the plaintiff's share, until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee thai would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the value so ascertained, is paid. (3) No final decree shall be passed in favor of a defendant, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted towards his share in any suit such "the fee computed on the amount or value of his share of the assets of the partnership is paid. (4) Whether or not a decree is passed, payment made or property allotted under sub-section (2) or subsection (3), the fee payable under either of the said sub-sections shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue."

It will be noticed that at once that under the aforesaid two sections, court fee is to be computed on the amount estimated in the plaint and not on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint as under section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act of 1870. This very distinction is brought out by the Full Bench itself at page 1056 of the Reports and the Andhra Pradesh Full Bench had taken pains to interpret the word, "estimated" used in section 32(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court fees and suits valuation Act (VII of 1956) and thus the Full Bench noticed that,

(18) "IT appears to us that the legislature now clearly enjoins the duty on the plaintiff to endeavor to estimate or appraise the value of the relief he seeks. He has to make a bona fide effort at valuation to find out the worth of the relief he seeks. He cannot arbitrarily and deliberately under value the relief because in such cases he cannot be said to have made an estimate at all. Whatever doubts there might have been regarding the construction of section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act of 1870, those doubts have now been dispelled under the new Act."

(19) It will, thus, be noticed that the decision, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of A.KA.C. T.V.CT. Meenakshisundra Chettiar (supra) was based on its own provisions as prevalent in Andhra Pradesh.

(20) It will again be not out of place to mention that though the Foil Bench decisions in this part of the country arc there from 1913, the Legislature thought it fit to amend clause (c) of Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, namely the addition of proviso to section 7(iv)(c) by the Provincial Legislature by Punjab Act 31 of 1953 which was extended to Delhi. So far as Section 7(iv) (c) as amended by Punjab Act 31 of 1953 and applicable to Delhi is concerned, it read as under :- (iv) In suits- (a) for moveable property where the subject-matter has no market-value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title, (b) to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property; (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed; (d) ............. (e) ............. (f) ........... (Provided further that in suits coming under sub clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by claiise(v) of this section.)

(21) If the interpretation of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act by the High Courts in this part of the country was not according to the intention of the legislature, there was no reason fur the Legislature while amending Section 7(iv)(c) to also amend Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act. It will be noticed that in Punjab a proviso was added to Section 7(iv)(c) when the suits deal with property and this proviso has been extended to Delhi. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the decision cf the Full Bench of this Court does not require any reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K.A.CT. V.CT Meenakshisundaram Chettier (supra).

(22) In fact, the decision of the Fill Bench of this Court has been repeatedly followed by Josh, J. in the case of Shri Manohar Lal Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others (1977) 79 P.L.R.D. 181(17), by S. Rangarajan. J in the case of Walaiti Ram Vs. Sri Krishan, 1975 R.L.R., 501(18) and by Avadh Behari, J. in the case of Dabur (S. K. Burman) V. Vikas Pharmaceuticals, 1983 Patent & Trade Mark Case-; (Vol 3) 169. (19)

(23) We are bound by the Full Bench decision arid are not persuaded to refer the matter to a larger Bench. There is also a:iothei reason for it. As far back as 1913 this has the law in this part of the country and we for one would not like the law to get unsettled unsettled suddenly by referring the matte to the larger Bench, particularly when the Act with which the Supreme Court or the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing was materially a different provision. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.