Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma and Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 2022]
The Supreme Court held that even in litigation involving immovable property, it is the nature of the relief claimed in the plain which decides the question of suit valuation and not the market value of the immovable property. Further, the court observed that the market value of the immovable property may have its relevance but ultimately the valuation of the suit depends on the nature of the relief claimed.
Through the instant appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 250 for each of the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and at Rs. 1 lakh for damages was wholly arbitrary when it is an admitted fact that the value of the property at the time of filing the suit was as high as Rs. 1.8 crores. The case concerns a suit instituted by the appellant before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi for injunction and recovery of damages against Respondent No. 1 and his Munshi (Respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 1 was a licensee, utilising the concerned property owned by the appellant for storage purposes. Later, he sought permission from the appellant to allow his Munshi to stay in the concerned property until the time the appellant requires it. When the appellant asked the respondents to vacate the suit property, the respondents refused and thereafter, the appellant served legal notices in August, 2016 asking them to vacate the concerned property and warned that he would claim damages for unauthorised use in case they stayed beyond the expiry of the notice period.
Gauging that they have no intention to vacate the premises, the appellant had filed the said suit. During the course of the proceeding Respondent no. 2/Munshi filed an Order VII Rule 11 application stating that the value of the property at the time of filing of the suit (Rs. 1.8 crores) as admitted by the appellant reflected that the Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. The application was rejected with costs and was subsequently assailed before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court accepted the application stating that the market value of the suit property was around Rs.1.8 crores at the time of the filing of the suit as also agreed by the appellant (in the instant appeal) during his cross-examination. Therefore, it is apparent that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction at Rs.250 for each of the reliefs of injunction is wholly arbitrary.
The Supreme Court noted that Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 clearly states that for an injuction suit, the computation of fee payable has to be “according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal” and “in all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought” Therefore, the court held that merely because the subject matter of the litigation involves an immovable property, market value would not become decisive of the suit valuation. The Court observed that in the present case, a mandatory injunction had been sought by the appellant seeking the licensees to remove themselves and their belongings from the concerned property and therefore, the appellant had valued the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 250 for each of the reliefs for injunction and Rs. 1lakh for damages. Accordingly, he paid the court fees. Hence, the Court held that the High Court had erred in not considering the unquestionable principle of law that a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property.
About the author
