Summary
The owner of a 252 sq yard plot in Uttam Nagar, Delhi sued his brother and the brother's munshi, whom he had admitted as gratuitous licensees of a tin-shed, for mandatory injunction to remove themselves and their belongings after termination of the licences, prohibitory injunction and damages, valuing each injunction relief at Rs 250 and damages at Rs 1 lakh. When the plaintiff said in cross-examination that the property was worth about Rs 1.8 crore, the contesting defendant applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the application but the Delhi High Court, finding the valuation 'wholly arbitrary' in light of the market value, ordered return of the plaint. The Supreme Court set the High Court's order aside.
Issues
- Whether a suit for mandatory injunction directing licensees to remove themselves after termination of licence, with prohibitory injunction and damages, must be valued for court fees and jurisdiction at the market value of the immovable property, or at the plaintiff's valuation of the relief under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
- Whether a plaint can be ordered to be returned under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the strength of the plaintiff's statement in cross-examination about the market value of the property.
Provisions considered
- Section 7(iv)(d), Court Fees Act, 1870In a suit to obtain an injunction the fee is computed according to the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief in the plaint; the High Court wholly omitted this provision and relied only on the market value of the plot, which is not decisive merely because immovable property is the subject matter of the litigation. (¶¶ 8, 9.1, 10, 14)
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The trial court rightly held that only the plaint is to be looked at and that the plaint had been properly valued as per the reliefs claimed; the defendant's application founded on the plaintiff's cross-examination answer was rightly rejected. (¶¶ 3.10, 13)
- Mandatory injunction against a licensee (Sant Lal Jain; Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes), Specific Relief Act, 1963A licensor who sues promptly after terminating a licence may seek a mandatory injunction compelling the licensee to remove himself; such a suit is maintainable and is not required to be valued at the market value of the property, as the High Court itself accepted in treating the case as on all fours with Mulk Raj Khullar. (¶¶ 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5)
Held
- It is the nature of the relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of suit valuation; the market value of immovable property involved may be relevant depending on the relief but does not become decisive merely because immovable property is the subject matter. A suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against licensees, valued at Rs 250 per injunction relief and Rs 1 lakh for damages with fees paid accordingly, was not arbitrarily valued. (¶¶ 9.1, 10)
- The High Court erred by picking up the word 'whimsical' from Mulk Raj Khullar in isolation and treating the market value stated by the plaintiff in cross-examination as proof of arbitrary valuation, while missing the statement in the very passage it reproduced that such a suit is not required to be valued at the market value of the property. (¶ 9.5)
- Commercial Aviation v. Vimla Pannalal, concerning a suit for accounts where an objective standard may exist, does not mean a suit for mandatory injunction over property must be valued at market value; accepting that proposition irrespective of the relief claimed would throw the Court Fees Act's scheme of valuation by nature of relief into disarray. Mahant Purushottam Dass, a declaration suit under Section 7(v), was irrelevant. (¶¶ 11, 11.1, 11.2, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Delhi High Court's order of 18.03.2019 in CM(M) No. 961 of 2018 directing return of the plaint set aside and the trial court's order of 11.07.2018 rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application restored; merits left open in the pending first appeal against the decree. No order as to costs.