BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA versus PRATAP NARAIN VERMA & ANR

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1156 · Decided: 16-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
   [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1156
1156
BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA
v.
PRATAP NARAIN VERMA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 2022)
JUNE 16, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Court Fees Act, 1870: ss. 7(iv)(d), 7(v) – Computation of fees
payable in certain suits – Valuation of – On facts, suit for mandatory
and prohibitory injunction and also for damages for use and
occupation of the suit by appellant against the respondent – During
the pendency, an application u/or. 7 r.11 CPC filed by the respondent
for want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that the value of
the suit property is not taken while computing the court fees –
Rejected by the trial court, however, the High Court returned the
plaint for filing the same in the court of appropriate jurisdiction –
On appeal, held: Suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is
not required to be valued at the market value of the property – It is
the nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the
question of suit valuation– Market value does not become decisive
of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is the
subject-matter of litigation – 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 – On facts, the appellant 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–High Court
relied only upon the market value of the property to hold the
valuation of the present suit to be arbitrary, which does not stand
in conformity with law – Thus, the order passed by the High Court
is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned order as passed by the High
Court with reference to the statement made by the plaintiff in his
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
cross-examination on the value of the suit property, does not
stand in conformity with law and cannot be sustained. [Para
7][1169-F-G]
1.2 The nature of the present suit, makes it evident on the
face of record that the plaintiff-appellant has sought the reliefs of
mandatory injunction against the defendants for removing
themselves and their belongings from the plot in question, while
alleging that the defendants were in occupation thereof only as
licensees; and were obliged to remove themselves after
termination of respective licenses. The plaintiff has also prayed
for the relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction that the
defendants may not create any third-party rights in the suit
property or raise any construction thereon. The plaintiff has
valued the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at
Rs. 250 for each of the reliefs for injunction and at Rs. 1 lakh for
damages; and has paid the Court fees accordingly. [Para 9][1170-
C-E]
1.3 It remains trite 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. [Para 9.1][1170-F]
1.4 So far as the present suit is concerned, the plaintiff has
alleged the defendants to be the licensees and has sought
mandatory injunction obliging them to remove themselves and
their belongings. With such pleadings, claim of relief of mandatory
injunction is not unknown to the legal process. [Para 9.2][1170-
G-H]
1.5 The discussion as regards maintainability of suit for
mandatory injunction does not require much elaboration for the
settled position of law as also for the relevant fact that even in
the order impugned, the High Court has not stated anything to
the contrary, so far as the question of maintainability of the suit
seeking relief of mandatory injunction is concerned. The High
BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA v. PRATAP NARAIN VERMA
& ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Court rather placed this aspect of the matter beyond the pale of
do

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.