For ease of readers, specific portion of relevant legal provisions are stated hereunder, that form the basis of this article. For the entire section refer to bare acts.
Section 7 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970, – ‘computation of fees payable in certain suits’.
Section 7 sub-section (iv) clause (b) In suits- for declaratory decree and consequential relief: – to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed,
…………according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal subject to the provisions of section 11.
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought;
Section 7 sub-section (v) clause (a) for possession of land, building or gardens: – In suits for the possession of land, building or gardens, not being suits referred to in clause (vi)-
(a) according to value of subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to be fifteen times the net profits which have arisen from the land, building or garden during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint, or if the Court sees reason to think that such profits have been wrongly estimated, fifteen times such amount as the Court may assess as such profits or according to the market-value of the land, building or garden, whichever is lower;
(b) if, in the opinion of the Court, such profits are not readily ascertainable or assessable, or where there are no such profits, according to the market value of the land, building or garden;
Explanation- In this paragraph ‘building’ includes a house, out house, stable, whether of masonry, bricks, woods, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever;
Section 7 sub-section (vi) for recovery of possession of immovable property: – In a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property from-
(a) a trespasser, where no declaration of title to property is either prayed for or necessary for disposal of this suit – according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint subject to the provisions of section 11;
(b) a licensee upon revocation and termination of his license,-
(i) where the license fee is payable by the licensee in respect of the immovable property to which the suit refers-according to the amount of the license fee of the immovable property payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint, or (ii) where no such license fee is payable the licensee-
According to the amount at which the relief sought is valued on the plaint subject to provisions of section 11;
Section 11. Inquiry as to valuation of suits – If the Court is of opinion that the subject matter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose.
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or rights – Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no Court shall make any declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration omits to do so.
Explanation- A trustee of a property is a ‘person interested to deny’ a title adverse to he title of someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.
To fully explain the practical application of legal provision as stated above in daily Court practice, I shall discuss three case laws as under-
(I) First case law being : 2008(2) CalLJ 306 –
Facts – An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No.8 dated 22nd April, 2008 whereby the learned Trial Judge rejected the defendants application under Order 7, Rule 10 (return of plaint ) read with Section 21 (objection to jurisdiction) of the Code of Civil Procedure .
The propriety of such an order is challenged in revisional application at the instance of the defendants/petitioners before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title in respect of the suit property. Along with the declaration, a decree for injunction was sought for against the defendants for restraining them from changing the nature and character of the suit property. And a decree for permanent injunction has also been sought for against the defendants, for restraining them from transferring and/or alienating the suit property in favour of any third party. Further, a decree for recovery of possession was also sought for against the defendants in the said suit.
Thus, it appears from that within the plaint diverse reliefs were claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of common cause of action which are that the plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was the khasmahal land of the State. They further claimed that the State of West Bengal settled the said khasmahal land in favour of their predecessor- in-interest. The plaintiffs inherited the suit property from their predecessor-in-interest after their death.
The name of the plaintiffs were also recorded as owners of the suit property in the revenue records of the State. After change of the name of the road on which the suit property situates, the number of the original holding of the suit property was changed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and several holdings were created out of the parent land holding by the Corporation.
All on a sudden the plaintiffs found that the defendant no.4 namely Puja Constructions started raising construction on the suit property without obtaining any permission and/or consent from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also came to know from the municipal records that the names of the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 were recorded as transferee owners of the suit holdings. A building plan was also sanctioned by the Municipal Authority in favour of the defendants and the defendant no.4 being a promoter/developer has started raising construction on the suit property as an agent of the said defendant nos.1, 2 and 3. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs against the defendants.
In the concise statement of the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of khas possession is valued at Rs. 3,210/-. In the said plaint the plaintiffs stated that for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Court and for payment of Court fees, the suit is valued at Rs. 3,210/- with the following break up i.e. for declaration of Rs. 100/-, for injunction Rs. 100/-, for recovery of possession Rs. 3,000/- and for mesne profit Rs. 10/- tentatively. Court fees were also paid on such valuation of the plaint.
In this context, the defendants/petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 10 with Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that since the plaintiffs are admittedly out of possession and since a decree for recovery of possession has been sought for, the plaintiffs ought to have valued the relief for recovery of possession at the prevailing market rate of the suit land which is not less than Rs. 1 crore and thus, the plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem Court fees on such valuation.
The defendants produced their purchase deeds to show the present market price of the suit property and thus, claimed that since the valuation of the suit property is more than Rs. 1 crore, the suit cannot be tried by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly the defendants prayed for return of the plaint to the plaintiffs.
The learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioners said application by the impugned order by holding inter alia that since the relief for injunction and for recovery of possession are consequential reliefs, such reliefs can not be granted unless the plaintiffs prayer for declaration of their title in the suit property is allowed.
According to the learned Trial Judge, such suit, for the purpose of computation of Court fees falls under Section 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and, as such, the plaintiffs are not required to value the suit as per the provision, contained in Section 7(v)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970.
Thus, the defendants prayer for return of the plaint to the plaintiffs was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.
The defendants felt aggrieved against the said order. Accordingly, the revisional application was filed.
The advocate for the petitioner/defendants thus, submitted that since a declaration of title has been sought for in the present suit along with the prayer for recovery of possession, the instant suit cannot be classified as a suit falling under Section 7(vi) (a) of the said Act. The advocate for the petitioner/defendants further contended that when recovery of possession is sought for together with the prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs title, suit falls under the classification of Section 7(v) (b) and accordingly, the plaintiffs are required to value the said suit according to the market value of the suit property as the profit arising therefrom is not readily ascertainable and assessable.
The advocate for the petitioner/defendants further contended that if the valuation of the suit property is made by the plaintiffs arbitrarily and whimsically for avoiding payment of ad valorem Court fees and/or to evade payment of appropriate Court fees or for conferring jurisdiction on some Court which it does not have or for depriving the Court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have, the Court can certainly interfere, both under the provisions of Section 11 of the Court Fees Act as well as under the provisions of the Suit Valuation Act.
The advocate for the petitioner/defendants further submitted that it is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which is the determining factor for valuation of the suit. For ascertaining the correctness of the valuation statement, the Court is required to scan the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint itself by taking each averment in the plaint as true and correct.
In support of such submission the advocate for the petitioner/defendants relied upon the following two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
In the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid & Others. reported in (1988)2 SCC 575.
In the case of Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh & Others. reported in (2002)1 SCC 304 – which were not applicable as precedents to the present case.
The learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties/plaintiffs refuted the submission of petitioners/defendants by contending inter alia that the suit as framed and the reliefs as claimed in the said suit cannot be classified either under Section 7(v) (b) or under Section 7(vi)(a) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. By reading the entire pleadings of the plaint, he submitted that in the instant suit the primary relief is the relief for declaration of title. The other reliefs which are claimed by the plaintiffs in the said suit either by way of injunction or for recovery of possession, are incidental and/or consequential reliefs as those reliefs cannot be granted unless the plaintiffs title in the property is declared.
The learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties further submitted that on the basis of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint the plaintiffs are entitled to get diverse reliefs and, as such, those reliefs were joined together in the said suit but in any event the relief for injunction and/or recovery of possession cannot be granted independently unless the plaintiffs title in the suit property is declared. Under such circumstances, it was submitted that for the purpose of computation of Court fees, such suit should be valued as per the provision contained in Section 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970.
In support of his submission the learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties cited the following decisions wherein it was uniformly held that if the principal relief is declaration of any right and if the other reliefs claimed in the suit can only be granted, if the declaration of title as sought for, is granted then the other relief should be regarded as consequential reliefs and under such circumstances, the suit should be classified under Section 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970:
1. In the case of Smt. Dhiraj Bala Karia v. Jethia Estate Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta page 166 (Special Bench).
2. In the case of Naba Kumar Das v. Damodar Das reported in 1992(II) CHN 482.
3. In the case of Paresh Chandra Nath v. Naresh Chandra Nath & Others. reported in (2006)1 CHN 526.
4. In the case of Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj reported in AIR 1987 SC page 2085.
The learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties, thus, contended that in a suit where the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction and/or for recovery of possession by way of consequential relief, the correct mode of valuation for such relief is to put a single valuation and the option of valuing the relief rests with the plaintiffs.
The learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties further contended that separate valuation of the reliefs which have been given by the plaintiffs in the suit is merely a surplusage and if the Court finds that excess Court fees have been paid by the plaintiffs, the Court can even refund the excess Court fees to the plaintiffs. In support of such submission the learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties also relied upon the following decisions of this Hon’ble Court:
1. In the case of Balaram Mondal v. Sahebjan reported in AIR 1950 Calcutta page 85.
2. In the case of Jitendra Nath Mukherjee v. Commissioners of Baduria Municipality & Others. reported in AIR 1967 Calcutta 423.
In the aforesaid context, the learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties supported the judgment of the learned Trial Judge.
The learned Counsel, appearing for some of the opposite parties, appearing for the other set of opposite parties also supported the submission as above, however, referred to the following four decisions to strengthen his submission in support of his impugned order:
1. In the case of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1958 SC 245.
2. In the case of Mahithsh Mookherjee v. Satyaranjan Chatterjee reported in 1953 CWN page 340.
3. In the case of Panchi Bala Midda v. Namita Rani Dey Chowdhury reported in AIR 1996 Calcutta 133.
4. In the case of Bani Basu & Others v. Sachindra Nath Ghosh & Another. reported in 2008 (92) CHN 165.
The Hon’ble Court after hearing both sides finally came to the conclusion in the following manner:
the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as the reliefs claimed in the suit have already been stated above. On careful reading of the averments made in the plaint as well as the reliefs claimed therein, this Court holds with all certainty that the reliefs which were claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit either by way of injunction or by way of recovery of possession are dependent upon the relief for declaration of title. This Court also holds that the relief for declaration is not the only relief which is sufficient in the facts of the instant case and if declaration only, is sought in such case, the suit will be barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
In fact, the plaintiffs are entitled to diverse reliefs in the facts of the instant case but the reliefs by way of injunction and/or recovery of possession cannot be granted unless their title in the suit property is declared. This is not a suit where the defendants were described as rank trespassers. The plaint averment shows that the defendants are in possession of the suit property on a show of title. The plaintiffs, no doubt, have challenged the legality of the defendants title in the property on the strength of the settlement of the suit land given by the State of West Bengal in favour of the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest. Thus, in fact, for tracing the title of the real title holder, declaration of the plaintiffs title was sought for, in the suit. If the said declaration is not granted then the other reliefs either by way of injunction or by way of recovery of possession cannot be granted independently in favour of the plaintiffs. As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the relief by way of declaration is the principal relief in the suit and the relief for injunction and recovery of possession are incidental and consequential reliefs. As such, the plaintiffs are required to value the entire suit as per the provision contained in Section 7(iv) (b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and not under Section 7(v) (b) of the said Act as contended by the petitioners advocate. The decisions which were cited by the advocates’ for the opposite parties/plaintiffs are squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case and thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality by rejecting the defendants application for return of the plaint. The Revisional application, thus, was rejected.
(II) The second case that we shall discuss is: 2015(5) Cal. H.C.N. 50 –
Facts: The short challenge in the revisional application before the Hon’ble Court was to the order impugned being no. 59 dated 28th of June, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Court (Junior Division), Tehatta, Nadia in Title Suit No. 443 of 2004.
By the said impugned order the learned trial Court was pleased to come to the finding that at the time of writing judgment it came to the notice of the Court that the declaration of title to the property is necessary for adjudication of this suit. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of possession of suit property and mesne profit without making a prayer for declaration of title.
The learned Trial Court was therefore of the considered view that for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction the suit cannot be valued, as done by the plaintiffs under Section7(vi) (a) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. In the opinion of the learned Trial Court the valuation cannot be done in terms of the said Section 7(vi) (a) of the said Court Fees Act, since declaration of title to the suit property is necessary for making a consequential prayer for recovery of possession. Therefore, the learned Trial Court took the view that the suit should be valued according to Section 7(v) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. In view of such decision, the learned Trial Court refrained from delivery of judgment and stayed all further proceedings in the suit until the correct determination of the Court fees and realisation thereof.
Aggrieved by the said order impugned dated 28th of June, 2007, the present petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the revisional application.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs, takes this Court to the pleadings in Title Suit No. 443 of 2004. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that from the pleadings it shall be clear that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs was the absolute owner of the suit premises. The right, title and interest of the predecessor in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs was declared in his favour vide decree in Title Suit No. 286/1961. By the said decree the R.S. Record was also declared to be erroneous.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs further submits that consequent to such declaration of the right, title and interest of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit property, the LR Records was correctly recorded in the names of the present petitioners. The present petitioners have been paying rent and taxes to the State. Upon the death of one Purnima Das widow of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs, Bhakta Ram Das, her share devolved upon her three sons, viz. the plaintiffs.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs points to the further fact that the Title Suit No. 443 of 2004 has been necessitated by the fact that the present opposite parties/defendants are trying to dispossess the petitioners/plaintiffs from the suit property. Accordingly, it became necessary for the petitioners/plaintiffs to pray for a decree for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property in which admittedly the petitioners/plaintiffs are the co-owners.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs further points out that in view of the admitted position in the plaint with regard to the ownership of the suit property in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, the decree for recovery of possession was valued under Section 7(vi)(a) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. He submits that the learned Trial Court erred in directing that the suit be valued according to Section 7(v) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970.
In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs relies upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2008(2) CLJ (Cal) page 306 in the matter of Sri Kartick Mondal & Ors. v. Sri Biman Sen & Ors. wherein it was held as follows:
“27. The cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as the reliefs claimed in the suit have already been mentioned above. On careful reading of the averments made in the plaint as well as the reliefs claimed therein, this Court holds with all certainty that the reliefs which were claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit either by way of injunction or by way of recovery of possession are dependent upon the relief for declaration of title. This Court also holds that the relief for declaration is not the only relief which is sufficient in the facts of the instant case and if declaration only, is sought in such case, the suit will be barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In fact, the plaintiffs are entitled to diverse reliefs in the facts of the instant case but the reliefs by way of injunction and/or recovery of possession cannot be granted unless their title in the suit property is declared.
This is not a suit where the defendants were described as rank trespassers. The plaint averment shows that the defendants are in possession of the suit property on a show of title. The plaintiffs, no doubt, have challenged the legality of the defendants’ title in the property on the strength of the settlement of the suit land given by the State of West Bengal in favour of the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest. Thus, in fact, for tracing the title of the real title holder, declaration of the plaintiffs’ title was sought for, in the suit. If the said declaration is not granted then the other reliefs either by way of injunction or by way of recovery of possession cannot be granted independently in favour of the plaintiffs. As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the relief by way of declaration is the principal relief in the suit and the relief for injunction and recovery of possession are incidental and consequential reliefs. As such, the plaintiffs are required to value the entire suit as per the provision contained in Section 7(iv) (b) of the said Act as contended by the opposite party. The decisions which were cited by petitioners advocate are squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case and thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality by rejecting the defendants’ application for return of the plaint.”
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs also relies upon an unreported decision of this Hon’ble Court in CO 289 of 2014 in the matter of Ujjala Das v. Pannalal Basu. Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Paresh Chandra Nath v. Naresh Chandra Nath reported in [2006] 1 CHN 526, the Hon’ble Single Bench, inter alia, held as follows:
“This Court finds that the valuation, required to be put on such a suit, should be under Section 7 (iv) of the said Act and not Section 7 (vi) of the said Act. The main relief claimed in the plaint relates to declaration of title and the consequential relief flows therefrom is the recovery of possession on the strength of title. The aforesaid proposition can be fortified from the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench, rendered in the case of Paresh Chandra Nath v. Naresh Chandra Nath & Others, reported in 2006 (1) CHN 526, where the Court has held that if the parent relief is capable of being valued as per the plaint, the consequential relief, being dependent thereupon, cannot be valued independently. This Court, therefore, does not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned order. The revisional application is devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.”
Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs in the matter of Smt. Bina Roy v. Smt. Basanti Bhattacharya & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 WBLR (Cal) 227 is an authority for the proposition that ‘with regard to the payment of proper Court fees on a plaint, the same is primarily an issue between the plaintiff and the State.’
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, submits that the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the Court fees payable on the plaint must be in terms of Section 7(v) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 since the plaint is one pertaining to declaration of title to property in the suit.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties takes this Court to the relevant pleadings in the plaint of Title Suit No. 443 of 2004 and particularly paragraph 6(a) thereof. He argues that it is the admission of the plaintiffs that the wife of the said Bhakta Ram Das, one Purnabala Dasi (both since deceased) is said to have purchased some portions of the suit property from the opposite parties/defendants. In that view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties further submits that the question of declaration of title of the plaintiffs in the suit property becomes necessary and, in the absence of payment of Court fees connected to a prayer for declaration of the title, the suit cannot be proceeded with.
This Hon’ble Court after hearing both sides, finally observed and held that in the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to be persuaded to take the view following the judgments referred to above that the plaintiffs are required to value the suit as per provisions contained in Section 7(iv) (b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and not Section 7(v) (b) of the said Act.
(III) The third case law that we shall discuss is Arabindo Saha & Ors.. Appellants V. Nowser Ali Khan…Respondent, dated 16-12-2015, S.A.T no.295 of 2014 with C.A.N no.6443 of 2014-Division Bench- Calcutta High Court-
Facts: This was second appeal directed against the judgement and decree dated 25th April, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 42 of 2012 reversing the judgement and decree dated 13th February, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 181 of 2010 at the instance of the defendants/appellants.
The instant second appeal arose out of a suit for eviction of trespassers. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Since the property is under the possession of the Receiver, the plaintiff used to pay rent to the Receiver.
It is alleged by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants in June, 2002. He has also filed a complaint case, but the said complaint case was dismissed and the defendants were discharged vide order dated 11th April, 2008. Since the defendants have not vacated the suit premises and/or given up possession thereof to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for eviction against the defendants.
The defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement stating therein that the plaintiff had no cause of action for filing the present suit. The parties led their evidence in respect of their claims in the suit. The learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and their evidence, was pleased to dismiss the said suit primarily on the ground that the relief claimed in the said suit has not been properly valued and ad valorem court fees has not been paid in the light of the provision contained in Section 7 (v) (b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act. The learned Trial Judge also held that the allegation regarding dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit premises by the defendants has not been corroborated by any independent witness of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit was dismissed.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned Trial Judge and allowed the said appeal. The reliefs which were claimed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession was granted by the learned Appellate Court. This second appeal is directed against the said judgement and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court.
The Hon’ble Court after considering the submission came to the conclusion as under that:
Section 7(vi) (a) of West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 thus makes it clear that if possession from a trespasser is sought to be recovered on the basis of declaration of title of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is required to value the suit on the basis of the actual market price of the suit property and he is also required to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of the suit property.
The said provision thus makes it clear that if the plaintiff files a suit for recovery of possession from a trespasser without seeking any declaration of his title in the property or in a case where grant of relief prayed for by the plaintiff is not dependent upon declaration of his title in the suit, then the plaintiff is not required to value the suit on the basis of the actual market price of the suit property. Under such circumstances, he can value the suit on the basis of the valuation of the relief claimed in the suit.
Thus if we apply this test in the present case, then we find that since the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of possession from trespassers without seeking any declaration of his title in the suit property and further since grant of such relief to the plaintiff is not dependent upon any declaration about his title in the suit property, he can maintain the suit by following the relief claimed in the suit as per his own choice.
That be the position, we have no hesitation to hold that the suit has been properly valued and sufficient court fees has been paid by the plaintiff in the suit.
Conclusion: From the case laws as stated above and from the reading of the relevant provisions of law supra certain principles can be deduced as under:
1. In a suit for declaratory decree and consequential relief, the plaintiff has substantial liberty to value his suit; e.g. declaration of title with consequential and/or incidental relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The consequential and/or incidental reliefs being dependent on the declaration of title of the plaintiff, without which the other reliefs cannot be granted or valued independently or separately.
2. The suit which are filed for recovery of possession of immovable property as the principal relief, then in those cases the suit has to be valued according to the market value of the proper, if the net profits from such property are not ascertainable.
3. The principle in point no.2 is subject to exceptions that if the suit with a principal prayer for recovery of possession from a trespasser, where no declaration of title is prayed for, or declaration of title even if prayed for, the same is not at all essential to the determination of the lis, or if it is a suit for eviction of licensee, the same need not be valued according to the market value of the property.
4. The question of suit value and jurisdiction on the ground of suit value can be considered at any stage of the suit.
At times due to the provision of law making a compulsion to seek all reliefs available in suit at hand on the same cause of action as contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act supra, the advocates for the welfare of his client, resorts to the safe path of seeking declaration of title. This approach of seeking declaration of title should be exercised cautiously, instead if not necessary, derivation or origin of title can also explained in the pleading without making a separate prayer for it as an alternative approach to this aspect of drafting a suit plaint.
Understanding concept of consequential and/or incidental relief is also integral to the drafting of any suit. Reliefs’ which cannot be claimed independently or separately and are corollaries to the principal relief are categorized as consequential and/or incidental relief. The failure on the part of the plaintiff to establish the principal relief shall disentitle him automatically from claims over the consequential and/or incidental relief. The final craft to any suit drafting, in the above context would finally rest upon facts of each case and the sound knowledge and/or litigation experience of the advocate in that regard.
After reading this article readers might feel curious about cases of recovery of possession under Section 7 sub-section (v) of the W.B Court Fees Act which can be found in my previous article on Court Fees Act.
I finally conclude this article by word of thanks to Sri Swaroop Chatterjee for assisting me in editing this article.
#courtfees #courtfee #suitvaluation #courts #court #law #lawyer #attorney #legal #lawyers #law #advocate #highcourt #calcuttahighcourt #litigation #westbengal #declaration #consequentialrelief #declaratorydecree #Westbengalcourtfeesact #recovery #possession #immovableproperty #civilcases #specificrelief