IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ‘ BIL SPUR ‘CH‘H THSG RH WRIT PETITIONgzn‘No. ii(5g OF 2008 ((ggil E-TI'J‘IONER PLA INT] FF / Prafull Kumar S/o Champalal Jaiswa], aged about 51 years, R/o‘ Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaor) (0G,). VERS U S ‘ i" 1. Smt. Saroj Bai W/o Ashok, Jaiawal, aged about 56 years, R/ o CM! Line, Berdi Road, Post Sau$ar, District. Chhindwada (M.P.). Shalini Bai W/o Ashok ‘Ja‘iswal, aged about 45 years, R/o Ga‘ndhi Chowk, Near Geetanjali Kapad Centre, Post Chikhli, Di$trict B uldhhana (Maharashtl'a). Madhuri W/o Sanjay Jais‘wal, aged about 33 years, R/o Ei.W.S./297, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, DjMrict Durg (C.G.). Pradeep Kumar JaisWal .S/o Late ‘Shri Champalal Jaiswal, aged about 48 year$, R/o ln l’rcmt of' Bahul'i Mandir, Bajaj Nagar, 01d Bus St‘and, Bhandara Road, Post ’I‘umsar (Maharashtra) ,, Pr'a veerl Jaiswa] S / 0 Shri Champalal Jaiswal, aged about 43 years, R/o In front 0f Mukta 1321i School, Rajendra Nagar, Tumsar, District Bhandara (Maharashua). Rahul S/o Ashok Kurnar Jaiswal, aged about 20 Years, R/o G-ujm‘i Bazar, Gandhi Chowk, Near Geetanj ah Kapad Contra, Post Chikhli, r District Buldh hana (Maharashtra). RESPONDENTS 1') E‘FEN DANTS J P ELEIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONE) OF‘ IN DIA ‘T‘I'J‘UTION @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILA$PUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRS PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. VLE42271 Na. 4435 of 2008 PETITIONER ’ Prafuil Kuma Versus RESPONaENTS Smt. Sate; Bai and others. 3m Malay Kumar Bhaduri. counsel for the petitioner‘ Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for respondents No. 1,2, 3, 5 & 6. Ncne fer respcndent Na. 4. ORAL URDER ( 18I92I2011) Fouowing oral arder of the Court was passed by Pash'am Kumar Mishrg. J. Heard finally with the consent of learned caunsel for the parties. N ‘ (2) By the order impugned in this petition under An'icie 227 of the Constituiion 0f indie the teamed trial Court, white deciding defendants appiication under Crater 7 Ruie 11 of C.P.C., has directed the piaintiff to amend plaint to seek retiet for partition. vetue the suit accordingiy and pay ae vatotem Coutt fees. (3) The petitioneriplaintitf has flied a Suit with reepeet t0 property bearing Sheet No. 4743. Piot No. 130/1, Area 1121 sq. meter Situated at Ramadhin Marg anct Sheet No. 47-D. Plot No. 92/2, Area 324 Sq. meter situated at Hamalpara seeking a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to sale the ancestral property with out there being any partition and without the consent of the plaintiff and that the defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property before partition. (4) in the said suit the defendants moved an appticatton under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. inter aria stating that the suit is essentially for declaration of title with a consequential relief for permanent injunction. \ \Xtherefore the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court fee and as such ' ~ r. \ he shouid be directed to pay adequate ad vaiorem Court feé and on his faiiure the plaint be rejected. (5) The trial Court has held that the suit is in fact seeking partition, however no such relief has been ciaimed’ therefore the plaintiff is required to amend the piaint, seek a decree for partition and pay ad vaiorem Court fee. (6) Admittediy, as has been observed in the impugned order, the revenue record jointiy records name of the plaintiff as well as the defendants as title holder to the suit property. Since there is no cloud on l the plaintiffs title, for the present he did not feel that his title should be ‘ declared and therefore, plaintiff‘s sought a decree that it be declared that the defendant is not entitled to sale the property without there being any ' partition and that he be restrained from alienating property before the partition. Vatuation of a suit for declaration with consequential relief is governed under Section 7 (iv) (c) of Court-Fees Act. While dealing with the said provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Tara Devi vs. Srr' Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebar'ts Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad and another reported in AIR 1987 SC 2085 has laid-down the law in following terms :- “4. The instant speciai Ieave petition has been riled against the said order. We have heard the learned counsel and in our considered opinion we do not tina‘ any merit in the ergoments made on behalf of the petitioner. It is now well- settied by'the decisions of this Court in Sathappa Chettiar V. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar vs. Venkatac‘halam Chettiar, AIR 1979 SC 989 that in a suit for declaration with consequentiai relief falling under Sec 7(iv)(c) of the Court- fees Act, 18M, the plaintiff is tree to make his own estimation of the reiiefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. it is oniy in cases Where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the vaiuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively (—gn undewaiued, the Com can examine fhe valuation and can revise the same. The plaintiff has valued the lease hold interesf on the basis of the rent Such a valuation, as has been rightly heid by ihe Courts below, is reasonable and {he same is not demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate underestimation of the reliefs. We, therefore, do (not?) find any reason to grant special leave to appeal asked for the petition as the order passed in the said Revision is unexceptional. The special leave petition is therefore dismissed There will however be no order as to costs. " (7) In the present case aiso the plaintiff is seeking a deciaratory relief as also relief for permanent injunction. Suit for permanent injunction is also governed under Section 7 (iv)(ci) of the Court-Fees Act. in both the cases i.e. cases governed under Section 7 (iv) (c) and under clause (d) of the Court Fees Act the plaintiff can value the suit at which he values the reiief‘sought. When the defendant objects to the valuation and payment of Court Fees. the Court is only required to see that from the statement made in the plaint the valuation is not arbitrary, unreasonable or that the piaint has not been demonstrativeiy under valued. if on a scrutiny of ail these aspects it is found that the valuation is reasonable and not arbitrary, the Court has to accept the valuation made by the plaintiff and it has no jurisdiction to direct the plaintiff to amend the piaint, seek particular relief and then pay ad vaiorem Court fees. Such a course is not contemplated under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. because if the plaint is demonstrativeiy under valued or it has not been properly framed, the trial Court should have rejected the plaint, however it can not impose upon the plaintiff and direct him to frame the suit in a particular manner and then pay ad vaiorem Court fee. I/V (8) The impugned order suffers from grave error of jurisdiction and deserves to be interfered in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. Consequently the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia is allowed, the impugned order is set-aside. ,f hra Sdl A frashant Kumar Mis Judge