RAM NARAIN PRASAD AND ANR. versus ATUL CHANDER MITRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 29-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAM NARAIN PRASAD AND ANR. 
v. 
ATUL CHANDER MITRA AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, B.P. JEEVAN READY AND 
S.P. BHARUCHA JJ.] 
Court Fees Act, 187(}-Section 7-Valuation of suit for purposes of 
Court fees, held, must be made on the basis of averments in plaint and relief 
C sought therein, and averments in written statement not material in this regard. 
The appellants-plaintilYs sued the Respondent No.1 - Defendent for 
eviction from the suit premises on the grounds of default in payment of 
rent and personal need. They contended that they were the owners and 
Respondent No.1 was their tenant. For the purposes of jurisdiction and 
D court fees they valued the suit ou the basis of the monthly rent for 12 
months. 
In bis written statement, Respondent No.1 questioned the relation-
ship of landlord and tenant between ~parties. He also moved a petition 
in the trial court contending that the suit could not proceed unless ad 
E valorem court fees on the market value of the suit property were paid, since 
the court, in views of the pleadings of the parties, bad to decide in respect 
of the title "not incidentally but in a fullfledged manner". 
F 
The trial court accepted the contention of Defendant No.1 and 
directed the plaintiffs to pay ad-valoram court fees. The Plaintiffs ap-
proached the High Court by way of revision, which was dismissed in limine. 
They thereafter appealed to this Court by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, 
G 
HELD: 1. For the purpose of\.,.luation of the suit for determination 
of the court fees payable thereon, what is relevant is the plaint. The 
averments made and relief sought in the plaint determine the character of 
the suit for the purposes of the court fees payable thereon. What is stated 
in the written statement is not material in this regard. (200-B] 
H 
Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramenathan Chettiar, [1958] SCR 1024, fol-
196 
\ 
RAM NARAIN v. A.C. MITRA[BHARUCHA,J.] 
197 
lowed. 
2. The plaint in this case sought the relief of eviction of the first 
respondent from the suit property upon the averments that the appellants 
were the landlords and the first respondent was their tenant and he was 
A 
in arrears of rent. The suit could only be valued as an eviction suit', 
regardless of the fact that the first respondent had denied the appellants' B 
title to the suit property so that this became an issue in the snit. (200-C-D] 
, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3493 of 
1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.88 of the Patna High Court C 
in C.R. No. 254 of 1987. 
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants. 
M.P . .Iha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. The appellants were· the plaintiffs in a suit filed 
against the first respondent in the Court of the Mnnsif 1st. Gaya (being TS 
D 
No. 278 of 1971). It was alleged in the plaint that the appellants were the 
sons and daughters of one Jaikishun Lal who died on 1st July, 1962, leaving E 
them behind as his sole heirs. The late Jaikishun Lal had purchased the 
suit property from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 30th 
April, 1960. after the late Jaikishun Lal became the owner of the property, 
the first respondent had requested him to let the suit property to him on 
a monthly rental of Rs. 90. The proposal was accepted and the first 
p 
, 
respondent was inducted as a tenant on ls! May, 1960. On 18th May, 1960, 
,. 
the first respondent had executed a 
11Kiraydnama
11 in favour of the Late 
Jaikishan Lal in the aforementioned terms. The first respondent paid some 
rent lo the late Jaikishun Lal and thereafter to the plaintiffs. The last of 
such payments having been made on 7th August, 1962. The first appellant 
was a minor when J aikishun Lal died. Soon attaining majority the first G 
appellant had filed a petition for mutation of the Municipal register in 
respect of the suit property. The 1st respondent had filed objections 
thereto, which had been rejected. The appellants were the owners of the 
suit property. The lst respondent was their tenant and he was in arrears 
of rent. Being a defaulter he was liable to be evicted from the suit pioperty. H 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants needed the suit property for personal use. For the purposes 
of jurisdiction and Court fees. The suit was 'valued at Rs. 1080 being the 
monthly rent of the house in suit for 12 months' and the appellants, on 
payment of court fees of Rs. 157.50, pray
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.