Smt. Neelam Dagla Vs Sarwan Gond (Chhattisgarh High Court)
This court in case of Smt. Urvashi Bai Sharma Vs. Smt. Indumati Sharma 2015 (5) CGLJ (supra) has categorically held that for the purpose of injunction, the value of property would not be a criteria for valuation. In order to assess the valuation of plaint, the relief clause has to be seen. In a case where the fixed court fee is payable according to Schedule-II of Article 17 of the Court Fees Act for relief of declaration, that would be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act would be inapplicable as it only lays down that for Court fees the value and jurisdictional value would be same. However, to determine pecuniary jurisdiction, the relief clause would be relevant and not the caption of the plaint. In a suit as per Article 17 Schedule (ii) of the Court fee Act when such consequential relief is prayed for, the market value of the immoveable property would not be the criteria for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
It is observed that the plaintiff is free to evaluate his suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and claim for declaration when fixed court fee is paid according to the Schedule of the Court Fee Act as applicable at Chhattisgarh State. In the present case, the copy of plaint reveals that so far as it relates to relief of declaration, the plaintiff has evaluated his own declaration, therefore, he would not be required to pay the court fee on the value of property for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. In the State of Chhattisgarh, the fixed court fee of Rs.500/- would be payable when the plaint is presented before the Court of Additional District Judge as per Article 17 Schedule (ii) where declaration is sought for without consequential relief.
