By observing that the High Court totally omitted to consider the applicable provision of law i.e., Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act as also the principles of law stated in the very same decision being referred to and relied upon in the impugned order itself, the Apex Court allowed the present appeal filed by the appellants that was filed in pursuance of the suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction as also recovery of damages for use and occupation of the suit property, as filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants- respondents.
A Division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari allowed the present appeal that emerged from the suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction as also recovery of damages for use and occupation of the suit property, as filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants- respondents.
The appellants assailed the impugned order passed by the High Court with reference to the statement made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination as regards the value of the suit property whereby the Court ordered the return of the plaint for the purpose of filing the same in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. In view of the instat appeal the bench opined that despite unquestionable principle of law that such a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property, the High Court relied only upon the market value of the property to hold the valuation of the present suit to be arbitrary. In view of the same, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
The present appeal was culled out of a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction as also recovery of damages for use and occupation of the suit property, as filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants- respondents, wherein, an application filed by the contesting defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 during the course of plaintiff's evidence, for rejection of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, was considered and rejected by the Trial Court on July 11, 2018, however, the High Court took a different view of the matter in its impugned order dated March 18, 2019 with reference to the statement made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination as regards the value of the suit property; and ordered return of the plaint for filing the same in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
It is pertinent to note that after examining the petition seeking special leave to appeal in this matter on Apri; 26, 2019, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the impugned order of the High Court. Thereafter, the trial of the subject suit proceeded further and ultimately, the suit was decreed on August 31, 2000; and the appeal filed by the contesting defendant was pending.
The issue for consideration in the instant case was confined to determine the correctness and validity of the order passed by the High Court with respect to the suit valuation and not beyond.
After giving anxious consideration to the submissions of the parties and after pursuing all the material on record, the Top Court was of the view that the impugned order dated March 18, 2019, as passed by the High Court with reference to the statement made by the plaintiff in his cross- examination on the value of the suit property does not stand in conformity with law and cannot be sustained.
The Court further took into account Section 7(iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act. In view of the same the Court noted that it is trite in law that it is the nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation. As a necessary corollary, the market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The market value of the immovable property involved in the litigation might have its relevance depending on the nature of relief claimed but, ultimately, the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed.
Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Court observed that the plaintiff has alleged the defendants to be the licensees and has sought mandatory injunction obliging them to remove themselves and their belongings. Not much of discussion is required to find that with such pleadings, claim of relief of mandatory injunction is not unknown to the legal process, the Court noted.
In furtherance of the same, the Apex Court submitted the High Court did not even considered the overall circumstances of the present case where the plaintiff has valued the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction at the nominal Rs. 250 but, at the same time, has also valued the suit with reference to the claim of damages at Rs. 1 lakh and had paid the Court fees accordingly, the Court stated.
It is apparent on the face of the record that despite unquestionable principle of law that such a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property, the High Court has relied only upon the market value of the property to hold the valuation of the present suit to be arbitrary. Such a conclusion of the High Court neither stands in conformity with law nor with the frame and the nature of the present suit, did the Court submit.
Additionally, the Apex Court was of the view that the High Court totally omitted to consider the applicable provision of law i.e., Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act as also the principles of law stated in the very same decision being referred to and relied upon in the impugned order itself. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside and quashed and the order of the Trial Court was restored.
Case name: BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA v. PRATAP NARAIN VERMA & ANR
Picture Source :
