Smt. Chintamani Devi vs Vijay Kumar
2014 Latest Caselaw 3640 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) No. 117/2013

%                                                     11th August , 2014

SMT. CHINTAMANI DEVI                                        ..... Petitioner
                  Through:               Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Advocate.


                          versus



VIJAY KUMAR                                               ..... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated

29.11.2012 by which the trial Court has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to

value the suit for possession in terms of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act,

1870 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and which Section deals with the

suit for possession. Admittedly, the subject suit is a suit for declaration,

injunction and possession.


CM(M) 117/2013                                                                 Page 1 of 3
 2.           Counsel for the petitioner argues that relief of possession is

consequential to the relief of declaration and therefore court fee need not be

paid on the relief of possession under Section 7(v). For non payment of

court fee under Section 7(v) of the Act thus a very strange reason is put forth

that once possession is claimed as a consequential relief then, possession

claimed is not an independent relief.


3.           In my opinion, whether the relief of possession is consequential

to declaration is not material because the aspect actually is that an

independent relief of possession is claimed.        Once an additional and

independent relief of possession is claimed, then, court fee has to be paid

with respect to the suit claiming the relief of possession as per Section 7(v)

of the Act by valuing the property as per the market value on the date of

filing of the suit.   Therefore, the trial Court has rightly directed the

petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit property of which possession is claimed

at the market value and to pay the Court fee accordingly with respect to

relief of possession claimed.


4.           Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has sought to place reliance

upon the judgments in the cases of Batuk Chandra Patwari and Ors. Vs.

Kirti Ram Das and Ors. AIR 1972 GAUHATI 69 and Nokhelal Jha and

CM(M) 117/2013                                                             Page 2 of 3
 Ors. Vs. Srimati Rajeshwari Kumari and others AIR 1937 Patna 141,

however, I do not find that any of these judgments hold that if possession is

claimed as an independent relief the suit has not to be valued under Section

7(v) of the Act as per the market value of the property on the date of filing of

the suit.

5.           Dismissed.




AUGUST 11, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne