Guru Ravi Das Jainti Samorah ... vs Union Of India And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 174 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) Plaintiff Guru Ravi Das Jainti Samorah Samiti has filed this suit for declaration praying for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the land in dispute. The defendants in this case are the Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority.

(2) The land is situated in village Tughlakabad New Delhi and is alleged to be in their possession. Their main grievance is that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and they cannot interfere in the right or title of the plaintiff and without giving a show cause notice they cannot be allowed to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and they cannot be allowed to demolish the property without giving due and proper notice to the plaintiff. The action of the defendants is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(3) For the purpose of jurisdiction the suit has been valued at Rs 15 lakhs but for the purpose of court fee the plaintiff has paid fixed court fee of Rs 19.50. There is no mention that any notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code has been given to the Union of India or to Delhi Administration before institution of the present suit. There is also no mention that notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act has been served upon the Delhi Development Authority before filing the suit.

(4) The office has raised an objection that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee. According to the office objection, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction and the court fee should be the same and court fee should have been paid on Rs. 15 lakhs being the jurisdictional value given by the plaintiff in this suit.

(5) Mr Chechi learned counsel for the plaintiff advanced arguments on the plea that it is a suit for declaration simpliciter and he has right to pay court fee as per his choice and the court fee of Rs 19.50 has been correctly paid. He relied upon the decision of Punjab High Court in Jai Kishna Das vs Babu Ram and others , insupport of his contention that the decisions on the question of court fee payable on a plaint can neither depend on the pleas raised in defense nor on the maintainability of the suit as framed or the assumption that the court must spell out of the plaint upn such a claim which is ultimately capable of being decreed. According to him the relief claimed by him is only of declaration and no consequential relief follows and therefore objection raised by the office is frivolous.

(6) I have given my considered thought to the submissions made by the counsel for plaintiff. Every case depends upon its own facts. In this case the main grievance of the plaintiff is that Union of India Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Administration are unnecessarily interfering ill its possession and they cannot be allowed to demolish the property without giving proper notice to the plaintiff. From the averments made in the plaint it is apparent that Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority are threatening to demolish and dispossess the plaintiff, which act according to the plaintiff is illegal as no show cause notice has been issued. Hon'ble Judgesof,the Supreme Court in the case of Janakirama Iyer Vs Nilakanta Iyer , held that in construing the plaint the court must have regard to all the relevant allegations made in the plaint and must look at the substance of the matter and not its form. Supreme Court in the case of Sathappa Chettiar Vs Ramana Than Chettiar , observed that:

"IF the scheme laid down for computation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub-sections of Sec.7 is considered, it would be clear that, in respect of suits falling under sub-sec, (iv), a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purpose of court-fees. The theoretical basis for this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness."

(7) The question whether the plaintiff has been given an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on his belief was neither considered nor decided in the said case. It may sometime happen that in suits falling under section 7 a plaintiff gives a particular value for the purposes of court fee and different value for the purposes of jurisdiction. The question in such cases naturally arises whether the Court can compel the plaintiff to adopt the value stated in his plaint for purposes of jurisdiction, in other words whether the plaintiff can be compelled to pay court fees on the value for purposes of jurisdiction as the value for the purposes of court fee also. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that where in any suit other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, Section 7 paras 5,6,9 and para 10, clause (d) court fees are payable ad valorem under the Act, the value determinable for the computation of court fees and the value of the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. 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 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 insuits falling under Section 7 (iv)of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. The value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases.

(8) In this case from the allegations made in the plaint it is apparent that it falls under sub section (4) of Section 7 and as per Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee should be the same. The office objection raised is valid and that the plaintiff has not taken any steps to remove .the office objection. Therefore, on this ground alone the plaint is liable to be rejected.

(9) The other ground on which this suit is to be rejected is that this suit for declaration is against the Union of India and Delhi Administration, but no notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code has been served as required under the provisions of the said Section. No application has been filed seeking leave of the court for filing the suit without service of notice under Section 80 CPC. Even no notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act has been served on the Delhi Development Authority before filing this suit against the Delhi Development Authority and on this ground also the suit against Union of India, Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Administration is not maintainable. Under these circumstances, I reject the plaint.