Civil Appeal No 2137 of 1988
From the Judgment and order dated 1431986 of the Delhi High Court in FAO OS No 65 of 1986
Soli J Sorabjee SK Mehta PH Parekh and MKS Menon for the Appellants
Rajinder Sachar KC Dua and GS Sistan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
Special leave is granted
Heard learned Counsel for the parties
This appeal is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the Division Bench affirmed the judgment of a learned Single Judge of that Court rejecting the contention of the appellants that the suit was undervalued by the plaintiff respondent and accordingly the plaint should be rejected under clause b of Rule 11 of order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure
The respondent who is the plaintiff has filed a suit against the appellants inter alia for dissolution of partnership and for accounts
The suit has been valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs25 lakhs and at Rs500 for the purpose of court fee
The appellants filed an application wherein a preliminary objection was raised as to the valuation of the suit
It was contended by them that the relief sought for in the suit had been grossly undervalued 434 and the Court should reject the plaint under order VII Rule 11b of the Code of Civil Procedure
The learned Single Judge of the High Court overruled the said preliminary objection and held that the suit was not undervalued
On appeal by the appellants a Division Bench of the High Court took the same view as that of the learned Single Judge
The Division Bench placed reliance upon and followed a Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Smt
Sheila Devi  Ors
vs Shri Kishan Lal Kalra  Ors ILR 1974 Delhi 491 where it has been observed inter alia that paragraph iv of section 7 of the Court Fees Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any value that he likes on the relief he seeks subject however to any rule made under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiffs valuation
The Division Bench felt itself bound by the said Full Bench decision and accordingly it dismissed the appeal of the appellants
Hence this appeal
At the outset it may be mentioned that in regard to suits for accounts the Punjab High Court has framed rules under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act fixing court fee and jurisdictional value of a suit for accounts
Rule 4 of the Rules framed by the Punjab High Court provides as follows 4i Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint seeks to recover the amount which may be found to the plaintiff on taking unsettled account between him and defendant ii
suits of either of the kinds described in order XX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure Value for the purpose of court fee  as deter mined by the Court Fees Act 1870
value for the purposes of jurisdiction for the purpose of and the Punjab Courts Act 1918 as valued by the plaintiff in the plaint subject to determination by the court at any stage of the trial
 It is not disputed that the above rules framed by the Punjab High Court under section 9 of the are applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi
It is apparent from Rule 4 extracted above that valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is not the same
Indeed in the instant case the respondent has valued 435 the suit at Rs25 lakhs for the purpose of jurisdiction
That valuation has not been challenged by the appellant either in the High Court or in this Court
The only challenge that has been made by the appellant is the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee
So far as suits coming under section 7iv of the Court Fees Act are concerned the Legislature has left the question of valuation of the relief sought in the plaint or memorandum of appeal to the plaintiff
The reason is obvious
The suits which are mentioned under section 7iv are of such nature that it is difficult to lay down any standard of valuation
Indeed the Legislature has not laid down any standard of valuation in the Court Fees Act
Under Section 9 of the  the High Court may with the previous sanction of the State Government frame rules for the valuation of suits referred to in section 7iv of the Court fees Act
Although the Punjab High Court has framed rules under section 9 of the which are applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi such rules do not lay down any standard of valuation with regard to suits coming under section 7iv of the Court Fees Act
It has already been noticed that under Rule 4i of the Punjab High Court Rules the value of suit for accounts for purposes of court fee will be as determined by the Court Fees Act which means that the valuation of the relief will have to be made by the plaintiff under section 7ivf of the Court Fees Act
In a suit for accounts it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to value the relief correctly
So long as the account is not taken the plaintiff cannot say what amount if at all would be found due to him on such accounting
The plaintiff may think that a huge amount would be found due to him but upon actual accounting it may be found that nothing is due to the plaintiff
A suit for accounts is filed with the fond hope that on accounting a substantial amount would be found due to the plaintiff
But the relief cannot be valued on such hope surmise or conjecture
In this connection we may refer to the provision of order VII Rule IIb of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides inter alia that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so
It is manifestly clear from the provision of order VII Rule IIb that a Court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued which necessarily means that the Court is able to decide and specify proper and correct valuation of the relief and after determination of 436 the correct value of the relief requires the plaintiff to correct his valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court
If the plaintiff does not correct the valuation within the time allowed the plaint is liable to be rejected
The question is whether in a suit for accounts simpliciter the Court can come to a finding as to the proper and correct value of the relief until the final determination is made
In our opinion ordinarily it is not possible for the Court at a preliminary stage to determining the value of the relief in a suit for accounts simpliciter
If the Court is itself unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been made by him
Indeed in a suit for accounts it is also difficult for the Court to come to a finding even as to the approximate correct valuation of the relief
In such a case the Court has no other alternative than to accept plaintiff s valuation tentatively
There has been a divergence of judicial opinion on the question as to whether the plaintiff in a suit for accounts is entitled to put any valuation he likes
It is not necessary to refer to the decisions of different High Courts on the point and suffice it to say that they are not uniform some holding that the plaintiff is free to give his own valuation and others holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to give an arbitrary valuation without having any link or connection with the relief in question
In this connection we may refer to a Five Judge Bench decision of this Court in SRm
Sathappa Chettiar vs section Rm
Ramanathan Chettiar Gajendragadkar J speaking for the Court observed as follows If the scheme laid down for the computation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub sections of section 7 is considered it would be clear that in respect of suits falling under sub section
iv a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of court fees
The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness
Take for instance the claim for partition where the plaintiff seeks to enforce his right to share in any property on the ground that is joint family property
The basis of the claim is that the property in respect of which a share is claimed is joint family property
In other words it is property in which the 437 plaintiff has an undivided share
What the plaintiff purports to do by making a claim for partition is to ask the court to give him certain specified properties separately and absolutely on his own account for his share in lieu of his undivided share in the whole property
Now it would be clear that the conversion of the plaintiff s alleged undivided share in the joint family property into his separate share cannot be easily valued in terms of rupees with any precision or definiteness
That is why legislature has left it to the option of the plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of court fees
It really means that in suits falling under section 7ivb the amount stated by the plaintiff as the value of his claim for partition has ordinarily to be accepted by the court in computing the court fees payable in respect of the said relief
In the circumstances of this case it is unnecessary to consider whether under the provisions of this section the plaintiff has been given an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on his relief
 In the above decision this Court took the view that the conversion of the plaintiff s undivided share in the joint family property into his separate share cannot be easily valued in terms of rupees with any precision or definiteness
It is true that the Court did not consider whether the plaintiff had been given an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on his relief under the provision of section 7iv of the Court Fees Act but the difficulty that would be felt by the Court in exercising its power under order VII Rule 11b of the Code of Civil Procedure is that if it is unable to determine the correct value of the relief it cannot direct the plaintiff to correct the valuation
Order VII Rule 11b contemplates correct valuation and not approximate correct valuation and such correct valuation of the relief has to be determined by the Court
If the Court cannot determine the correct valuation of the relief claimed it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and consequently order VII Rule 11b will not be applicable
But there may be cases under section 7iv where certain positive objective standard may be available for the purpose of determination of the valuation of the relief
If there be materials or objective standards for the valuation of the relief and yet the plaintiff ignores the same and puts an arbitrary valuation the Court in our opinion is entitled to interfere under order VII Rule 11b of the Code of Civil Procedure
for the Court will be in a Position to determine the correct 438 valuation with reference to the objective standards or materials available to it
In Urmilabala Biswas vs Binapani Biswas  ors AIR 1938 Cal 161 a suit was instituted for declaration of title to Provident Fund money amounting to a definite sum with a prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing the said money
It was held that there was no real distinction between the right to recover money and the right to that money itself and that the relief should have been valued at the Provident Fund amount to which title was claimed by the Plaintiff
Thus it appears that although in that case the suit was one under section 7ivc of the Court Fees Act there was an objective standard which would enable the plaintiff and the Court too to value the relief correctly and in such a case the Court would be competent to direct the plaintiff to value the relief accordingly
In Kishori Lal Marwari vs Kumar Chandra Narain Deo and another AIR 1939 Patna 572 a question arose as to the valuation of a suit for injunction restraining a decree holder from executing his decree on the ground that the decree was collusive and obtained by fraud and therefore void and incapable of execution
It was held by the Patna High Court that the plaintiff must value his suit according to the amount of decree and must pay ad valorem court fee on such amount
In this case also there was a positive objective standard for the valuation of the suit
We may now refer to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur vs Radhashyam Marwari  Ors AIR 1940 Cal 482
But before we refer to the decision we may point out that by the Bengal Amendment Act VII of 1935 a new section 8 C has been inserted in the Court Fees Act
Section 8 C provides that 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 enquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose
In Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur s case supra it has been observed that although a satisfactory valuation may not be possible in the majority of the cases falling under section 7iv when once the Court has formed the opinion that the plaintiff s estimate is wrong it becomes the duty of the Court to estimate a correct and reasonable valuation of the relief claimed and it is for the Court to decide on the merits of each particular case whether the provisions of section 8 C should be invoked for the purpose of revising the plaintiff s valuation
Further it has been observed that if the relief claimed is impossible to value the Court is of course not in a position to say that such relief has been wrongly valued and there is consequently no scope for the operation of section 439 8 C but in a suit where it is sought to set aside a decree such valuation although difficult is not impossible
In a suit to set aside a decree prima facie the value of the relief claimed by the plaintiff would be the value of the decree and the onus would clearly lie on him to show that the relief should be valued at some smaller amount
It thus follows from the above decision that if the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff s estimate is wrong it becomes the duty of the Court to estimate a correct and reasonable value of the suit
If however the Court is not in a position to decide the correct value of the suit it has to accept the value that has been put the plaintiff on the relief claimed
In Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur s case supra there was an objective standard of valuation namely the decree which was souyht to be set aside
Thus where there are objective standards of valuation or in other words the plaintiff or the Court can reasonably value the relief correctly on certain definite and positive materials the plaintiff will not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation dehors such objective standards or materials
Mr Sorabjee learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has strenuously urged that in the instant case the respondent has valued the suit most arbitrarily according to her whims
It is submitted by him that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff cannot put an arbitrary valuation on the relief claimed by him
Much reliance has been placed by him on a few decisions of this Court which will be referred to presently
In Meenaakshisundaram Chettiar vs Venkatachalam Chettiar  this Court made the following observation The plaintiff is required to state the amount at which he values the relief sought
In suits for accounts it is not possible for the plaintiff to estimate correctly the amount which he may be entitled to for as in the present case when the plaintiff asks for accounting regarding the management by a power of attorney agent he might not know the state of affairs of the defendant s management and the amount to which he would be entitled to on accounting
But it is necessary that the amount at which he values the relief sought for should be a reasonable estimate
 That observation has been made by this Court with reference to 440 the special provision namely section 351 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and XIV of 1955
Section 351 provides that in a suit for accounts fee shall be computed on the amount sued for as estimated in the plaint
Section 351 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and is different from section 7ivf of the Court Fees Act
While under section 7iv the court fee is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal under section 351 the court fee shall be computed on the amount sued for as estimated in the plaint
In Meenakshisundram s case supra the plaintiff had given a detailed estimate in the plaint and this Court was satisfied that the estimate was quite adequate and reasonable
In Tara Devi vs Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj it has been laid down by this Court that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under section 7ivc of the Court Fees Act the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the relief sought in the plaint and such valuation both for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted
Further it has been observed that it is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same
In that case the plaintiff had valued the lease hold interest on the basis of the rent and such valuation was held to be reasonable and not demonstratively arbitrary
In making the above observation this Court has placed reliance upon its earlier decision in Meenakshisundram s case supra which as noticed above related to section 351 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and 
But one significant fact that is to be noticed in the case is that there is an objective standard of valuation that is the rent of the lease hold interest
It may be reiterated that when there is an objective standard of valuation to put a valuation on the relief ignoring such objective standard might be a demonstratively arbitrary and unreasonable valuation and the Court would be entitled to interfere in the matter
Another decision of this Court on which much reliance has been placed by the appellants is the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi vs Abdul Majid  ors JT It was also a suit for accounts and came under section 7ivf of the Court Fees Act
It has been observed as follows VINEET 441 It is true that in a suit for accounts the correct amount payable by one party to the other can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of the claim at the inception of the suit
The plaintiff is therefore allowed to give his own tentative valuation
Ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chose but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter
If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard
In such a case it is not only open to the Court but its duty to reject such a valuation
The cases of some of the High Courts which have taken a different view must be held to be incorrectly decided
 We are also of the view that the plaintiff cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials andor objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint
These materials or objective standards will also enable the Court to determine the valuation for the purpose of order VII Rule 11b of the Code of Civil Procedure
Indeed in Abdul Hamid Shamsi s case it has been noticed by this Court that the plaintiff has laid a claim to a sum of Rs12679672 besides another sum of over Rs84000 as his share in the profit for a particular period by reference to the proceeding of the Incom Tax Department mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint
Further a copy of the profit and loss account for the calendar year 1979 was annexed by the plaintiff to the additional affidavit filed on his behalf before this Court which also gave positive indication as to the valuation of the relief
The plaintiff in that case valued the suit without making any reference whatsoever to those materials or objective standards available to him and in the context of these facts this Court made the above observation
But if there be no material or objective standard the plaintiff s valuation has to be accepted
It is however urged by Mr Sorabjee that such an objective standard or positive material appears on the face of the plaint
Our attention has been drawn to paragraph 33 of the plaint where it has been stated by the plaintiff that on rendition of accounts the plaintiff estimates that approximately a sum of Rs25 lakhs to 30 lakhs would become due to her share
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that in view of such a statement in the plaint the respondent should have valued the relief for rendition of accounts at Rs25 lakhs
We are unable to accept the contention
The statement does not in our opi 442 nion constitute any objective standard of valuation or a positive material from which it can be said with any amount of certainty that the valuation of the relief for accounts should be at the sum of Rs25 lakhs
The respondent was not required to make such a statement in the plaint
It is the wishful thinking of the respondent that on account being taken she would be entitled to such a huge amount
The respondent has not given in the plaint any material in support of the estimate of Rs25 lakhs to Rs30 lakhs to her share
As has been stated already this is no material at all on which any reliance can be placed for the purpose of valuation of the relief
In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Lahore High Court in Atma Ram Charan Das vs Bisheshar Nath Dina Nath AIR 1935 Lahore 689
In that case also the question was whether the plaintiff had correctly valued the relief for the rendition of accounts
in the plaint the plaintiff stated that a sum of Rs8000 was due to him from the defendants but he valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fee at Rs5000 tentatively
It was 
held that the plaintiff could not be prejudiced or damnified merely because he added to the plaint a computation which was unnecessary for him to live
We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also the legal position and in our view the valuation of the relief for the rendition of accounts under section 7ivf of the Court Fees Act is neither unreasonable nor it is demonstratively arbitrary
In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs5000
RSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant not being satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition officer in respect of his land placed under acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act applied for a reference to a civil court for determining the market value of the land for awarding compensation to the appellant
The Trial Court determined the market value of the land in question at Rs8692 per acre
The High Court reduced the amount of compensation payable to Rs484587 from Rs8692 per acre
The appellant moved this Court for relief complaining that the High Court had erroneously revised downwards the valuation correctly arrived at by the Trial Court
Allowing the appeal partly the Court  HELD The trial Court had virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition officer as a judgment under appeal
The Court laid down general guidelines to be followed in respect of methodology for valuation in order to capsulize the true position
534E F The valuation made by the High Court had been faulted on three grounds 1 The High Court should not have made a deduction of 25 in place of deduction made by the Trial Court at 20 to account for the factor pertaining to largeness of the block of land under acquisition
539B 2 The High Court had grossly under valued the land in determining the market value of the appellant s land at Rs7000 per acre as a block
539B C 532 3 There was no warrant for pushing down or depressing the market value of land as determined by the Trial Court in order to deduce the present value  by reference to Miram s Tables to account for the factor as regards the estimated time lag for development reaching the block of land in question which was situated in the interior
Besides the time lag of 12 years as estimated by the High Court was excessive and unrealistic
539C D The first two grounds were devoid of merit
It was not possible to find fault with the reasoning or conclusion of the High Court
The High Court was regularly engaged in valuation of the lands in different parts of the State and was fully aware of the landscape
It had made the estimate as regards the time lag for development to reach the appellant s land to the best of its judgment and having taken into account all the relevant factors it had arrived at its determination
The High Court had not committed any error or violated any principle of valuation
It was purely a question of fact and it was not possible to detect any error even in the factual findings recorded by the High Court
There was no material on the basis on which the plea of the appellant could be upheld that the valuation of Rs7000 per acre did not reflect the true market value or that the land in question was undervalued
541B F The Appellant s grievance with regard to the third ground was justified
The appellant s parcel of land in question situated very much in the interior was valued by the Trial Court at Ks
l0866 per acre less 20 for roads etc
The High Court valued this parcel of land at Rs7000 per acre
It had valued the land with the best situation on the Ganeshkhand Road at Rs20000 per acre
As against this the appellant s land was valued at Rs7000 per acre
This pushing down was made to account for its situation in the interior on the premise that development would take about 12 years to reach the appellant s land under acquisition
But after 12 years it would become land adjoining the developed area and not land which could be treated as in the interior
If the present value was to be ascertained it should be ascertained on the basis of present value of land which would fetch Rs20000 per acre after 12 years and not present value of land which would fetch Rs7000 per acre after 12 years
In fact the present value of Rs20000 payable at the end of 12 years at 8 would work out to Rs6942 according to Miram s Table 7 p657 of AK Mitra s Theory and Practice of Valuation 2nd Edition
The High Court was right in valuing the land in interior at Rs7000 per acre but wrong in directing that present value of Rs7000 payable after 12 years should be ascertained
The appellant must be awarded compensation at Rs7000 533 per acre subject to deduction or allowance of 25 to account for land required to be set apart for roads open spaces etc
The appellant would be entitled to be paid compensation for his land in question at Rs5250 per acre Rs7000 less 25 in place of lesser amount awarded by the High Court
541F H 542A F The appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the Central Amending Act 68 of 1984 in view of section 302 of the Act because these appeals were pending before this Court on 30th April 1982 if the view is taken that the said Act had retrospective operation in the sense that the amended section 232 and section 28 apply also in relation to an order under appeal against an award made by the Collector or Court between April 30 1982 and the commencement of the Amending Act
This must depend upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court expected soon the appellant would be entitled to the benefit as above said if the Constitution Bench upholds the view expressed in Bhag Singh case 1985 3 SCC p 737 and overrules the view expressed in Kamalajamanniavaru case 542G H 543A B