IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.78 of 2006 RAJ BALLABH SINGH, S/o Late Sufal Singh, R/o Vill. – Basant Patti, P.S. Purnahya, Distt. – Sheohar …. Defendant - Petitioner Versus SHYAM LALI DEVI, Wife of Krishna Kumar Singh and daughter of Late Raja Singh, resident of Village Anhari, P.S. Riga, Distt. Sitamarhi, at present residing in Village Basant Patti, P.S. Purnahya, Distt. – Sheohar …… Plaintiff – Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Yogendra Mishra and Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocates. For the opp. Party:-Er. Harendra Kumar and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates. For the State:- Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG III with’ Mr. Anshuman Singh, AC to AAG III. ----------- 9. 12.11.2009. Since the matter involves court fee to be paid in the suit, notice was issued to the State. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the Munsif, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 26 of 2004 whereby the question raised by the petitioner as to whether the suit had been valued rightly by the plaintiff and the court fee paid is correct and as to whether the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court concerned, has been answered in negative by the court concerned. Office has raised an objection that this 2 revision has been filed challenging the valuation and the court fee and, as such, is in teeth of the law laid down in Sri Rathnavarmaraja V. Smt. Vimla, [AIR 1961 SC 1299 (V 48 C 235)] and, thus, does not appear to be maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of maintainability submits that from the last sentence of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja (supra) it would be manifest that the Apex Court has kept the matter open to be decided if the question of jurisdiction is involved. Learned counsel for the sole opposite party submitted that under the garb of challenging the jurisdiction as well as valuation of the suit, the main issue involved, which is consequential also, is the court fee amount to be paid in the suit and, thus, the revision would not be maintainable in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the State also chose to toe the line of the sole opposite party. That apart, the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the issue of correct valuation of the suit 3 has been taken up by the court below for determination and evidences were led on the issue. However, the court below, completely ignoring such evidence on record relying only upon the valuation which has been shown in the deed of gift concerned, has decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff – opposite party. Learned counsel for the opposite party, however, submits that the entire evidence has been discussed by the court below. It has also been submitted that the valuation of 14 acres in the concerned deed of gift was shown to be of Rs. 9,000/- whereas valuation of 7 ½ decimals of land concerned, which is the subject matter of the suit, has been given as Rs. 5,000/- by the plaintiff, which is manifolds more than the valuation shown in the deed of gift concerned. Thus, it is submitted that enhancement of price has also been taken into consideration while disclosing the valuation of the suit in the plaint. It is also submitted that in terms of Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 in a suit for declaratory decree and consequential relief, court fee has to be paid upon the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the suit property. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party both have placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Md. Alam Vs. Gopal Singh & ors., (1987 PLJR 370). The petitioner has placed reliance upon the aforesaid decision to demonstrate that the right of valuation of the suit property by the plaintiff was not absolute, but the court has power to look into the matter as to whether such valuation was correct or not. On the other hand, the opposite party has placed reliance upon the aforesaid very same decision on the point that ordinarily the suit value declared by the plaintiff has to be accepted and, if the same has been decided by the court below, the court fee cannot be challenged either by the appellant or by the court in its revisional jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels for the opposite party and the State. This Court also in a decision rendered in Sk. Kaiyum @ Md. Kaiyum & Ors. Vs. Md. Dil Nawaz & Ors., (Civil Revision No. 757/2006, disposed of on 5 03.07.2009) had an occasion to examine this issue. In the aforesaid case, this Court has taken into notice of several earlier decisions of this Court as well as the decision of Apex Court rendered in Sri Sheonath Saraff Vs. Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1968 PLJR 578). In the aforesaid case wherein the plaintiff had brought a suit to set aside the certificate of sale held for Rs. 25,000/- and also for declaration that the sale was vitiated by fraud. The plaintiff declared the suit values as Rs. 25,000/-. However, the court fixed the same as to be Rs. 4,00,000/- and directed that the court fee amount should be paid upon the aforesaid amount which was the actual market value of the property. A Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision had held that ad valorem value does not mean market value but only a reasonable value to be put by the plaintiff and, therefore, the insistence that the market value of the property should be taken into account was found to be improper. In the case of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, [AIR 1958 SC 245 (V 45 C 40)], the Apex Court had held that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 of the 6 Suits Valuation Act, 1887 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees and if the suit value is computed under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act then the court fees will depend upon the value that the plaintiff has disclosed in the suit. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. In Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj & Anr., [(1987) 4 SCC 69 :: AIR 1987 SC 2085] the Supreme Court has held that the value estimated by the plaintiff is ordinarily to be accepted. However, 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. Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court Md. Alam Vs. Gopal Singh & ors. (supra) wherein it has been held that the court has clear jurisdiction to interfere where plaintiff manifestly and deliberately undervalues and under-estimates the 7 valuation of relief. However, it has also been held that the issue as to what would be the proper court fees to be paid on a plaint is primarily a question between plaintiff and State and appellate or revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a defendant against an order adjudging payment of court fee payable to the plaint. In the present case, the issue of valuation of the suit and, as a result of its being under-valued, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court concerned had been raised by the defendant. However, the court concerned had decided the issue upon consideration of rival submissions and after recording the evidence had held that the suit valuation was adequate as the claim of the plaintiff revolved around the deed of gift in question which had disclosed the valuation of 14 acres of land to be of Rs. 9,000/-. However, 7 ½ decimals land out of the aforesaid property had been valued by the plaintiff to be an amount more than half of the amount that had been disclosed in the deed of gift for 14 acres of land. The State has also not objected the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff and has supported the impugned order. Thus, in the above view of the matter I do 8 not find any jurisdictional error committed by the court below. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )