ONLINE LEGAL RESEARCH DATABASE AND LAW LIBRARY IN INDIA
Suit for the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1870, and its value for the purposes of jurisdiction are not necessarily identical and are frequently very different. A suit to be valued for following two purposes:
(1) for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in which the Suit shall be filed, and (2) for fixation of court fee to be paid.
Valuation for Jurisdiction regulated by –Suit Valuation Act 1887
Valuation for court fees regulated by-Court Fees Act 1870
- In order to guard against mistakes as to the value of a suit for purposes of jurisdiction and of court-fees, respectively, every plaint ought upon its face to show the value for purposes of jurisdiction as well as the value for the purpose of computing court-fees. The former information is requisite in order that the Court may determine whether the plaint should be returned under Order VII, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure. When a plaint omits to disclose the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction, the person presenting it should be questioned, and his answer recorded on the plaint unless he consents to amend it then and there.
- Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that, where a suit mentioned in the Court-fees Act, section 7, paragraph (iv), or Schedule II, Article 17 or 22, relates to land or an interest in land, of which the value has been determined by the rules made under section 3, the amount at which the relief sought in the suit is valued for purposes of jurisdiction shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules.
-
Appellate Court : Notwithstanding anything in [ section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,] an objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit or appeal a Court of first instance or lower appellate Court which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an appellate Court unless-
(a) the objection was taken in the Court of the first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in the lower appellate Court in the memorandum of appeal to that Court, or
(b) the appellate Court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was over-valued or under-valued, and that the over-valuation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits.
(2) If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1), but the Appellate Court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in clause (b) of that sub-section and has before it the materials necessary for the determination of the other grounds of appeal to itself, it shall dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the Court of the first instance or lower appellate Court.
(3) If the objection was taken in that manner and the appellate Court is satisfied as to both those matters and has not those materials before it, it shall proceed to deal with the appeal under the rules applicable to the Court with respect to the hearing of appeals; but if it remands the suit or appeal, or frames and refers issues for trial, or requires additional evidence to be taken, it shall direct its order to a Court competent to entertain the suit or appeal.
(4) The provisions of this section with respect to an appellate Court shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under 2[ section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,] or other enactments for the time being in force.
Supreme Court Cases
Addl. Distt. Sub-registrar Siliguri Vs. Pawan Kumar Verma and ors.
C.G. Ghanshamdas and ors. Vs. Collector of Madras
Church of South India Trust Association Vs. Telugu Church Council
Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and ors. Vs. Vimla Pannalal
Devasahayam (D) by Lrs. Vs. P. Savithramma and ors.
J Vasanthi vs N Ramani Kanthammal[10 August 2017]
Lakshmi NaraIn Vs. First Additional District Judge, Allahabad
Lakshmi NaraIn Vs. First Additional District Judge, Allahabad
M/S Anita International Vs. Tungabadra Sugar Works Maz.Sangh and Ors.
Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed and Co. Vs. Jay Krishna Arora
Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar
Nawab John and ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam
Neelavathi and ors. Vs. N. Natarajan and ors.
Nemi Chand and anr. Vs. the Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and anr.
Rattan Lal and Co. and anr. Vs. the Assessing Authority and anr.
S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S.Rm.Ar.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar
Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and ors.
Smt. Nandita Bose Vs. Ratanlal Nahata
State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. Vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products and
State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors. Vs. Caltex India (Ltd.)
Subhash Mahadevasa Habib Vs. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas (D) by Lrs. and o …
Sujir Keshav Nayak Vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and ors.
Valuation of Suits – Delhi High Court
The Uttar Pradesh Suits Valuation Rules, 1942
The plaintiff at Paragraph 18 of the Plaint stated that for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.125/- out of which Rs.100/- for declaration and for Rs.25/- for injunction and the ad valorem court fees are paid accordingly.
