@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G.C. Mathur, J.@mdashA suit was filed by opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 4 for injunction and possession over certain Bhumidhari land. In the suit, the Plaintiffs challenged certain sale deeds to which some of them were parties. An objection as to the valuation and court fees paid was faised by the Defendants. On the basis of this objection, the following issue was framed:
Whether the suit is undervalued and court-fee paid is insufficient?
It may be stated that the valuation mentioned in the plaint was Rs. 101/- and presumably, court-fee was paid on that amount. The objection of the Defendants was that, since the value of the land sold was Rs. 5,600/- that should be the proper valuation of the suit and the court fee should be, paid on that amount. The trial court held that the proper valuation would be Rs. 4,500/- , the amount for which the land was sold and since its pecuniary jurisdiction was below Rs. 4,500/- , it being the court of the Additional Munsif, it directed the case to be transferred to the court of the Munsif, Mirzipur. Against this order, the Plaintiffs went up in appeal. The Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzipur, agreed with the trial court that the suit involved cancellation of the sale deeds but he disagreed with it that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction and for payment of court-fees should be Rs. 4,500/- . He held that a suit for cancellation was covered by Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act and that the court-fee was payable on the valuation of the subject-matter. He further held that the valuation had to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(v-B)(c) of the Act and that the court-fee paid by the Plaintiffs was sufficient. He accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Munsif and sent the case back to him for trial in accordance with Jaw. Against the order of the Civil and Sessions judge, the Defendant has come up in revision.
2. Both the courts below have held that the suit involves cancellation of the sale deeds. This has not been disputed by Learned Counsel for the parties before me. The question, which arises for consideration, is as to what should be the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and what should be the court-fees payable in respect of the relief for cancellation of the sale deeds.
3. So far as the matter of court-fees is concerned, it is covered by Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act. This section provides that, in suits for or involving cancellation of an instrument securing property having a market value, the court-fee have to be paid according to the value of the subject-matter. In Ram Kumar v. Damodar Das 1949 AWR 67 a Division Bench of this Court held that Section 7(iv-A) cannot be so construed as to give the Plaintiff an alternative either to value the suit on the amount of sale consideration or on the value of the property and that the value refers to the market value of the property. In this view, the sale consideration cannot be taken into account in finding the valuation for purposes of court-fees and the court fee has to be paid on the market value of the property. The explanation by Section 7(iv-A) of the Act provides that
The value of the property'', for the purposes of this sub-section, shall be the market-value, which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with Sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B) as the case may be.
Thus the sale deeds being for land which is immovable property, one has to refer to Sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B) of the Act. In my opinion, it is sub Section (v)(1)(b) which is applicable to the present case. This sub-section provides that, in suits for possession of land where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid and such revenue is settled but not permanently, the value shall be ten times the revenue so payable. The explanation to this sub-section provides:
The word ''estate'' as used in this sub-section, means any land subject to the payment of revenue for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue.
The sales in the present case, being of Bhumidhari land, are clearly covered by this provision. Therefore, the market value of the Bhumidhari land for ascertaining the value of the land for purposes of Sub-section (iv-A) will be 10 times the revenue payable for the land.
4. The valuation for purposes of jurisdiction has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act. The relevant portion of Section 4 of this Act provides that suits mentioned in paragraph IV (A) of the Court Fees Act shall be valued for purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved and such value shall, in the case of land, be deemad to be the value as determinable in accordance with the rules framed u/s 3 of the rules framed u/s 3, Rule 3(b) is applicable to Bhimidhari land in respect of which the impugned sale-deeds were executed. Rule 3(b) provides that the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction shall be, where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government or forms part of such estate and such part is recorded in the Collector''s register as separately assessed with such revenue and j such revenue is not permanently settled, thirty times the annual revenue so payable. In Rule 2(b), "estate" is defined to mean any land subject to the payment of revenue for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement with the Government or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been, separately assessed with Revenue. It is thus clear that the suit involving cancellation of a sale deed of Bhumidhari land will have to be valued, for purposes of jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 3(b), at 30 times the annual revenue payable.
5. Thus, in a suit involving cancellation of sale deeds of Bhuimidhari land, the valuation, for purposes of payment of court fees, is ten times the land revenue and for purposes of jurisdiction, it is 30 times the land revenue. From the plaint and the judgment of the Civil and Sessions Judge it appears that the land revenue payable in respect of the Bhumidhari lands which were sold is nine annas and eight pies per annum. The valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is well within the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional Munsif. The view taken by the Additional Munsif that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction should be Rs. 4,500/- which is the sale consideration is erroneous arid the Civil and Sessions Judge is right in directing that the Additional Munsif should entertain the suit. The Additional Munsif; did not express any view as to the amount of court-fees payable in respect of cancellation of the sale deeds. The view of the Civil and Sessions Judge that the court fee has to be determined in accordance with sub Section (v-B)(c) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act does not appear to be correct and as held above, it is to be determined in accordance with Sub-section (v)(1)(b) of Section 7 at 10 times the revenue payable for the land. The Additional Munsif will determine the actual amount of court-fee payable and if there is any deficiency in the court, fees already paid, he will call upon the Plaintiffs to make good the deficiency.
6. With these observations, the revision is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs of this revision.
