Delhi High Court
Sunita Kansal vs Subhash Chand on 12 September, 2013
Author: Jayant Nath
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 06.08.2013
Pronounced on: 12.09.2013
+ IA No.19203/2012 (u/O.7 Rule 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1650/2011
SUNITA KANSAL ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Dilip Singh, Mr.Roshan Ara and
Ms.Tarannum Praveen, Advs.
versus
SUBHASH CHAND ..... Defendant
Through Mr.Rakesh Kansal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
IA No.19203/2012 (u/O.7 Rule 11 CPC)
1. The plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking possession of three
rooms, one store, one kitchen, bathroom, latrine at ground floor and
entire first floor of property bearing No.T-82, Vishnu Garden,
Khayala, Delhi-110018. The defendant is the real brother of the
husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is stated to have purchased the
suit property for valuable consideration from Smt.Sulochna through
defendant. The defendant was the power of attorney holder for the
suit property and is stated to have executed relevant documents in
favour of the plaintiff.
2. The present application is filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. It is stated that for the purpose of
jurisdiction, Court fee and relief the suit at the first instance was
valued at Rs.23,65,280/- and Court Fee was affixed accordingly.
Subsequently the plaint has been amended. It is stated that earlier the
plaintiff had filed the suit for possession of one room with store on
ground floor of the suit property and plaintiff had affixed the Court
Fee of Rs.25,500/-. Thereafter and application under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC was filed seeking permission for amendment of the plaint and
that application was allowed on 17.7.2012. The amendment was
carried out in the plaint. In the amended plaint the plaintiff seeks to
recover possession of the suit property. It is stated that the value of
the suit property of which possession is sought by plaintiff is
approximately Rs.2 crores. As plaintiff has failed to furnish the
additional court fees the present application is filed for rejection of the
plaint.
3. The plaintiff has filed his reply. It is stated that in the first instance
when the plaint was filed the suit was valued at Rs.23,65,280/- and
the Court Fee was affixed accordingly. It is further stated that the
property is situated in Vishnu Garden(Khyala) and comes in the
category "G" which had the circle rate of Rs.27,400/- per sq. meter.
The relevant area of the property is 180 sq. yards, the cost of the land
comes to approximately Rs.49,32,000/-. The cost of the construction
is calculated at the rate of Rs.4,750 per sq. meter. Based on this, the
total value of the property comes to Rs.52,78,125/-. Further, it is
stated that the suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
The suit is to be valued for the purpose of Court Fee at half of the
figure. Hence, it is stated that the difference is Rs.2664/- the
additional court fee which the plaintiff has already filed.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant in his rejoinder had no reply to the
explanation given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff for valuation
of the suit property.
5. In my view the explanation given by the plaintiff in his reply is a
complete justification for the valuation of the suit property. As stated
in the plaint under Section 7(v) (e) of the Court Fee Act where subject
matter is a house or garden in Suit for possession, valuation is done
according to the value of the suit property, which is the market value.
The plaintiff as given in his reply has valued the property at the
market value. For suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, in
terms of Entry 2 of Schedule I of Court Fees Act, Court Fees is fixed
at 50%. Hence, the valuation of the plaintiff as stated is correct. The
present application is without merits and is dismissed.
CS(OS) 1650/2011
List the matter on 27th November, 2013 before the Joint Registrar for
further proceedings.
JAYANT NATH, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
n
