SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

HARDEEP SINGH V. BALDEV SINGH & ORS. MANU/DE/3111/2014 (DELHI HIGH COURT)

HARDEEP SINGH V. BALDEV SINGH & ORS. MANU/DE/3111/2014 (DELHI HIGH COURT)

FACTS

  • The petitioner filed a suit in the Tis Hazari Courts seeking 1/4th share in a property located in Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
  • The petitioner claimed an equal share of 25 per cent in the suit property along with the respondents, asserting that it was acquired by his deceased mother from her own savings and resources.
  • Despite his request for division of the property for his portion, which he claimed was unheeded, the petitioner proceeded to file a legal notice, which also went unanswered.
  • The petitioner assessed the value of his share at 25 per cent of Rs. 19,45,000/-, for which he had paid ad valorem court fee.
  • The Court was of the view that the valuation report of the suit property showed it to be of the value of Rs.40,73,500/-, which was more than its pecuniary jurisdiction where the suit was filed. In these circumstances, the plaint was returned.
  • Hence, the present petition against the trial court judgment in HC.

ISSUE

  • Whether the court fee should be based on the total value of the property or only on the petitioner's claimed share value.

RULE

  • For the purpose of court fee calculation, the value of the petitioner's share is paramount, even if the overall property valuation is higher but for pecuniary jurisdiction overall property valuation is required.

HELD

  • The court clarified that for determining the jurisdiction of the court, the valuation of the entire property is considered. However, for the calculation of court fee, the value of the petitioner's share should be taken into account.
  • The Petitioner cited Prakash Wati v. Dayawanti, where the court emphasized that when a plaintiff seeks partition and joint possession, they must pay court fee based on the value of their share, even if they are not in actual possession of any portion of the property.
  • Following the precedent set in Prakash Wati v. Dayawanti, he acknowledged that he would be required to pay court fee based on the value of his share.
  • However, for jurisdictional purposes, the valuation of the entire property is considered under Rule 8 of the Rules made by the Punjab High Court.
  • The court rejected the petitioner's argument that only his claimed share value should be considered for both jurisdiction and court fee calculation.
  • Relying on Suresh Verma v. Anu, the court affirmed that while the valuation for jurisdiction purposes encompasses the entire property, the court fee calculation should adhere to the provisions of the Court-fees Act, based on the value of the relief sought.
  • Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the Trial Court to return the plaint based on the valuation of the entire property, as it exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court