Husensab vs Basayya and another. Civil Revision Petition 100033/2019 decided on 30 September 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/342240/1/CRP100033-19-30-09-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 5. On the basis of the submissions made by Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the questions which would arise for determination are: (1) Whether the Plaintiff is free to value the Suit in any manner it deems fit and just, by making payment of the court fee could such a plaintiff change the jurisdiction of the Court? (2) Whether in a suit for specific performance, it is only the value of the property shown in the said agreement that would have to be considered for the purpose of jurisdiction or would any other item like cost of issuance of legal notice be included so as to increase the valuation. (3) What would be the role of the Court in the event of an artificial increase in the valuation altering the jurisdiction of the Court?
Provisions of Order VII Rule 10 & 10A, 10B, Civil Procedure Code, Section 40 and 50 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act are noticed.
9.5 ….a party cannot by artificially inflating the valuation or undervaluing the Suit be allowed to file a particular suit before a Court which would in the absence of such incorrect valuation not have any jurisdiction to try the matter. Merely because the Plaintiff is willing to pay higher court fee by inflating the valuation, he cannot be permitted to do so since the hierarchy of the Court dictates that particular Suit with particular valuation would have to be filed and tried by a particular Court, thus, giving rise to a vested right to the defendant that the Suit of particular nature of particular valuation would be tried by that particular Court only and not by any other Court.
Paragraphs 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 & 10.5 … where the Suit is for a specific performance of contract of sale, the fee shall be computed on the amount of consideration. In the present case, apart from the valuation made as regards the consideration under the agreement of sale, the Plaintiff has added another item, namely the cost of issuance of legal notice to totally value the Suit at Rs.5,01,000/-. It is only by the addition of the relief, in this instance, towards legal notice, namely Rs.1,000/- that the valuation came to be increased in such a manner that the jurisdiction of the Court itself came to be changed. This in my considered opinion is not permissible.
Paragraphs 11.1 & 11.2 The Court would have to carefully examine the mode and methodology of the valuation made by the Plaintiff, more particularly when such a valuation would have the impact of altering the jurisdiction of the Court. The court cannot merely on the basis of the of the Plaintiff being willing to make payment of the court fee permit such a plaintiff to value the Suit at his whims and fancies and make payment of the stamp duty on that basis. The Court while dealing with the same and more so on an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC would have to determine the valuation. The Court would also have to separate the main relief from the ancillary relief in order to ascertain the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and that for payment of court fee separately and come to a finding that it is competent to take up the matter and that the Suit has been filed in a proper and competent court.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 