Satish Chandra Mittal, J. - (1.) THE salient facts of the case stated in the order of reference briefly are as follows: On 15th October, 1971, a decree for Rs. 21,500 as compensation for non -performance of a contract was passed in favour of Jagdish and Jagan Nath, Defendants 1 and 2. The present suit was brought by Surat Singh for cancellation of the decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and collusion. The Plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from executing the decree. The Plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 130 only. Accordingly, Rs. 13 was affixed as court -fee. The valuation was challenged by the Defendants. The trial Court accepted their objection and directed the Plaintiff to pay ad valorem court -fee of Rs. 1953.60 on the above -said amount of Rs. 21,500. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred the present revision petition.
(2.) THAT the present suit is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act has not been disputed before us. The relevant part of Section 7 dealing with the computation of fees payable in certain suits for money, reads: (iv) in suit: (a) for moveable property of no market value - -for moveable property where the subject -matter has no market value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to trial; (b) to enforce a right to share in joint family property - - to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property; (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief - -to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed. (d) * * * * (e) * * * * (f) * * * * In all such suits the Plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. Provided that the minimum court -fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees. It further deserves mention that by the Court Fees (Punjab Amendment) Act No. XXXI of 1963, the following proviso was added to Clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act: Provided further that in suits coming under Sub -section (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of this section. On behalf of the Plaintiff -Petitioner, reliance was placed on Bawa Bir Singh v. Ali Niwaz Khan, A.I.R. 1964 P&H 381 laying down that Clause (v) of Section 7 deals only with the method of calculation of value in case the suit relates to land, garden and houses and does not deal with a case of cash. The learned Judge further observed: Argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this proviso applies only to suits relating to property of which method of calculation of value is given in Clause (v) and not to other suits. Though it does look a bit strange that a suit seeking a declaration and consequential relief in respect of a house must necessarily be valued in accordance with the value of the property and if it relates to the same amount of cash the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to fix the amount at any figure, yet the wording of the proviso leads to no other interpretation. The learned Counsel for the Respondent could not urge any argument to the contrary. In view of the above, therefore, this proviso, which has been brought in by the amendment, has no application to the present case. It is the soundness of this view which is before us. The learned Judge himself noticed that the interpretation of the proviso was anomalous. As observed by the learned Judge, counsel for the Respondent was unable to urge any argument to the contrary.
(3.) FOR finding out the true effect of the proviso in question, the history of the case law, which was not even cited before us, deserves consideration. The earliest in point is Full Bench decision in Barru and Ors. v. Lachhman and Ors., 111 PR 1913, laying down: In suits falling under Section 7(iv)(c). Court Fees Act, the Courts are bound to accept the valuation placed by the Plaintiff upon the relief sought by him, even though such valuation is arbitrary and inadequately represents the value of the property.;