LexSUJIR KESHAV NAYAK versus SUJIR GANESH NAYAK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUJIR KESHA V NAY AK v. SUJIR GANESH NAYAK DECEMBER 12, 1991 [K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY AND R. M. SAHA!, JJ.] Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959: Section 36-Suitfor dissolution of partnership and account.r-Courtfee-Computaiion of-Defen- dant raising objection as to under-valuation of suit-Whether court can - examine correctness of valuation and direct the suit to ·be properly valued- . Court Fees Act, 1870: Section ?(iv)(f)-Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section 15 and Order 7, Rule 11. The appellant was carrying on business in partnership with the re- ~pondent. Consequent on differences between them, the appellant flied a suit for declaration that the partnership stood dissolved and the.respon- dent was liable for rendition of accounts. The suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction was valued at Rs. 10,050. The respondent claimed that the appellant had withdrawn huge amounts from the account of firm at another place which the appellant was primarily looking after and, therefore, it was the respondent who was entitled for accounting to huge amount from the appellant. In replication, the appellant claimed that from the date of dissolution, a sum of Rs.28 lakhs was due to him. In view of this plea and on objection by respondent, an additional issue was framed about . valuation of the suit. , The trial court held that in view of the appellarit's claim that a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs was due to him on dissolution of partnership, it was obvious that the suit was under-valued. It, therefore, directed him to correct the valuation and pay the deficient court fee. In revision, the High Court held that even though the Court was not ordinarily entitled to examine the correctness of the valuation shown by the plaintiff it has a duty to see whether the valuation so disclosed by the plaintiff was liable to be rejected as arbitrary and he could be compelled to give proper valuation and pay the court fee accordingly, ~md since from the claim made in the replication it was clear that the plaintiff had under- valued the suit by giving an arbitrary valuation, the order passed by' the trial court was correct and the suit could be entertained only after the ap- pellant-plaintiff corrected the valuation and paid the deficient court fee. Hence the appeal. 409 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. A Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. Where the question of court fee is linked with jurisdiction, a defendant has a right to raise objection and the court should decide it as a preliminary issue. But in those cases where the suit is filed in court of unlimited jurisdiction, the valuation disclosed by the plaintl.ff or payment B of amount of court fee on relief claimed in plaint or memorandum of appeal should be taken as correct. However, this does not preclude the court even in suits filed in courts of unlimited jurisdiction ·from examin- ing if the valuation on averments in plaint is arbitrary. [415 C-D] c S.R.A.S.S.Sathappa Chettiar v. S.R.AR.Ramanathan Chettiar, [1958] SCR 1024; Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid and Ors, [1988] 2 SCC 575; R.SJadhav Desai v. S. VJadhav Desai, [1918] PC 188; Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachtilam Chet- tiar, [1980] 1 SCC 616 and Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, [1987] 4 SCC 69, referred to. D 2.1 Various provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1957 or different sub-clauses of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 contemplate three modes of valuation of the subject matter, namely, according to market value, or subject matter or estimate by plaintiff or according to which relief sought is valued. Payment of court fee on estimate by the plaintiff or on the relief sought is a method provided for E in such suits where the exact amount is not known or is not capable of being known till it has been adjudicated upon on eviClence: [412H, 413A] 2.2 Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of Kerala Act amply safeguards the interest of revenue. Similar provisions exist in Central Act. But under Civil Procedure Code' plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule F 11 ifit is under-valued. To reconcile the two provisions, the one leaving it to absolute discretion of plaintiff to value the suit as he considers proper .and the· other to reject a plaint if it is under-vahied, it is necessary to examine the scheme disclosed in the Civil Procedure Code relating to filing of suit. [413 F] · G 2.3 Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.