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

TARA DEVI V. SRI THAKUR RADHA KRISHNA MAHARAJ (1987) 4 SCC 69

 TARA DEVI V. SRI THAKUR RADHA KRISHNA MAHARAJ (1987) 4 SCC 69

FACT

  • The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain leases executed by Nagendra Prasad Bhagat were illegal, ineffective, and not binding on the plaintiff. The suit also included a prayer for recovery of possession with mesne profits.
  • The defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the undervaluation of the suit and challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.
  • The trial court held that the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that the plaintiff had rightly valued the leasehold interest created by the lessee. The court found the plaintiff's valuation to be reasonable and upheld the payment of proper court fees.
  • The High Court under review petition, 
    • considered various decisions including those of the Supreme Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, held the plaintiff can estimate the relief claimed but cannot undervalue it. If the plaintiff deliberately undervalues it, the court can assess and revise the valuation. In this case, the revision application was dismissed.
  • The instant special leave petition has been filed against the HC order.

ISSUE

  • The main issue was whether, in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff has the absolute right to place any valuation on the relief claimed, or if the court has the jurisdiction to examine and revise the valuation if it appears to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

RULE

  • 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

HELD

  • In a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted.
  • The Court, after hearing the arguments, affirmed the decision of the High Court, stating that the plaintiff's valuation of the leasehold interest based on the rent was reasonable. As there was no demonstrative undervaluation, the court found no reason to grant special leave to appeal, and the special leave petition was dismissed.