1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 735 of 2008. Capt. Lance Irwin Lobo and Anr. .... Petitioners. Versus Mr.Gil Oswald Riberiro and 3 Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. P. S. Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the respondent No.4. CORAM :- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 17 TH April, 2009 . ORAL ORDER : 1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The order which is impugned, is the order directing revaluation of the plaint, which was incorrectly valued upon an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the defendant No.3 in the suit. 2 3. The plaintiffs in the suit (the petitioners) claimed declaration and injunction in respect of two flats, one restaurant and undivided right in respect of the entire immovable property called the suit property. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are stated to have sold the entire property to the defendant No.3 under a sale deed, in which the property is valued @ Rs.12 Crores and stamp duty @ Rs.24 Lacs is paid. The plaintiff has challenged the said sale deed upon aforesaid claim. The plaintiff valued the reliefs of declaration and injunction @ Rs.100/- each. The valuation has been rejected correctly. The Court has considered the documents relied upon by the parties and the fact of the valuation of the property as shown in the sale deed dated 18.07.2006. The Court has directed the valuation of the plaint at the values shown in the sale deed, which is Rs.12 Crores within 15 days of the order. 4. The plaintiffs' (the petitioners') Advocate has argued that the suit is for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff is entitled to state an amount on which he values his reliefs under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887. The plaintiff states that his valuation @ Rs.100/- must, therefore, be accepted by 3 the Court. The valuation is whimsical and arbitrary. No immovable property in a suit filed in the year 2007, can be shown to be any where near the figure put by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs require reliefs in respect of immovable properties, which are capable of monetary valuation upon the market value of these properties. In this case, the plaintiff has relied upon the sale deed of the very land in respect of which the reliefs are claimed. The plaintiff has to value the relief sought based upon the reasonable estimation of such immovable property. 5. The plaintiffs' Advocate relied upon four judgments i.e. (i)Hasham Ismail Mamsa V. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reported in AIR 1971 Bombay 215, (ii)Dharamraj Singh V. Vaidya Nath Prasad Khare reported in AIR 2002 MP 194, (iii)Haripada Datta V. Madhusudan Datta reported in AIR 1985 Gauhati 93 and (iv)Burjor V. Nariman reported in AIR 1953 Bombay 382, which relate to the suit for accounts, suit for injunction against interference of the possession, suit for land inherited by the plaintiff, in which share is claimed, the suit for declaration upon use and enjoyment and removal of construction caused by the defendant etc. 4 6. Even in a suit for accounts, the Supreme Court has held in Abdul Hamid Shamsi V. Abdul Majid and others reported in (1988)2 SCC 575 that an arbitrary and whimsical valuation cannot be accepted by the Court. That is precisely why the Court has power under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the plaint, if not correctly valued. 7. In this case the Court has rejected the plaint to amend the valuation clause and value of the suit property @ Rs.12 Crores, which is the valuation in the sale deed of the suit property itself. The sale deed is in respect of the entire property in which the plaintiffs claim exclusive right to only a small part being two flats and the restaurant and undivided share in the remainder. The plaintiffs shall value the suit property taking into account the market value as on the date of the filing of the suit keeping in view that the entire property has been valued @ Rs. 12 Crores. The deposit of Rs.15,000/- made by way of Court fees in this Court, shall be transferred to the Trial Court. The plaintiffs in the suit, shall be entitled to utilise that amount for the payment of the court fee. The remainder, if any, shall remain deposited in the trial Court until the suit is disposed of. 5 8. With this modification, the writ petition is disposed of. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA