- (1.) S. C. Mohapatra, J. This is an appeal under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for direction to defendants to leave the land and house mentioned in the schedule to the plaint which is in their possession within the time stipulated by the Court. In paragraph 20 of the plaint, plaintiff has valued the house at Rs. 4,00,691. 20 p. Trial Court which origi nally accepted court- fee paid has called upon plaintiff to pay deficit Court-fee on the valuation of the house after amendment of the plaint. This is grievance of the appellant. There is no dispute that Court-Fee is payable under Section 7 (v) of the Act for possession of the land, building or garden. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant relying upon a decision of Full Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1957 All 402-Shanti Prasad and others v. Mahabir Singh and others, that valuation of the house was for the purposes of pecu niary jurisdiction of the Court and relief was sought in respect of the land only for which Court-fee has been paid. Once valuation for the purposes of Court- fee has been accepted to be correct by the Court, the same should not have been again re-opened on account of amendment of the plaint where relief remained unchanged through a fact was introduced in body of plaint. Full Bench of this Court was considering the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court under the Suits Valuation Act and not the question of correctness of Court-fee paid in the suit. For determination of such ques tion, Full Bench observed that a suit has to be valued for two purposes: (1) for payment of Court-fee, and (2) for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which it is to be filed. In paragraph 9 of the said decision, it was observed that for the purposes of Court-fee, land was to be valued under sub-para (1) of para (V) of Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act. This observation was made in the context of the question under consideration. As has been held in AIR 1968 SC 749-State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and others, a case is not to be made out on basis of observation in another case which was made in context of that case. Therefore, Full Bench decision is distinguishable and would be of no assistance to plaintiff where plaint was perused to come to the conclusion that no relief was sought for in respect of the house.
(3.) IN the present case, however, on the perusal of the plaint, we are satisfied that the relief for recovery of possession of land and house has been sought for. For coming to conclusion about the relief sought plaint is to be read as a whole and dextarity in drafting the relief to avoid payment of Court-fees should not influence a Court. On perusal of the plaint as amend ed, we are satisfied that relief being for recovery of possession of the house which is valued at four lakhs rupees, Court-fee is payable on that amount. Accordingly, Trial Court is correct in calling upon the plaintiff to pay deficit Court-fees. In result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. .;