Deals with suits where the plaintiff seeks to enforce a right in joint family property.
The plaintiff can value the relief claimed at their discretion, and court fee is payable ad valorem on the declared amount.
Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Applicable where possession of land or house property is sought.
Court fee is computed on the market value of the property.
Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870
Relates to accounts reliefs — court fee is based on the valuation fixed by the plaintiff.
Article 17-B of the Second Schedule (Madras Amendment)
Prescribes fixed court fee for certain types of declaratory reliefs without consequential benefits.
Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887
States that in cases under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, valuation for jurisdiction and court fee should ordinarily be the same.
Facts of the Case
Subbiah Chettiar was adopted into a joint Hindu family and became a coparcener.
He filed a partition suit in the trial court but later entered into a compromise with his brothers (respondents).
Under the compromise decree, he accepted cash and property plots in exchange for relinquishing all his rights in the joint family property.
The release deed also included a clause waiving the rights of his son (the present appellant).
The appellant later filed a suit for partition and accounts, claiming that:
He was a coparcener by birth and
The earlier compromise decree was not binding on him
In this suit:-
The plaint filed by the appellant valued the claim for accounts at ₹1000 under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
For the relief of partition, a fixed court fee of ₹100 was paid under Article 17-B (Madras Amendment) of Schedule II of the Act, without declaring any valuation for that relief.
However, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the appellant declared ₹15,00,000 as the value of his share in the joint family property.
Issues
Whether the appellant was bound by the previous compromise decree made by his father.
Whether in a partition suit under Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff can:
Declare a valuation of relief at their discretion, and
Be permitted to amend the plaint to correct valuation errors.
Whether the jurisdictional value once declared (₹15 lakh) binds the plaintiff for court fee purposes.
Was the plaintiff correct in paying fixed court fee under Article 17-B for the partition relief?
High Court
The High Court (Madras Division Bench) held:
Once the plaintiff had voluntarily declared ₹15 lakh as the jurisdictional value, that same value should apply to determine the court fee payable as well
The court held that since the plaintiff had not specifically valued the partition relief under Section 7(iv)(b) (which allows the plaintiff to assign a valuation), and had instead chosen to pay only a fixed fee, the valuation already mentioned (i.e., ₹15 lakh) would be binding for court fee computation too.
When the appellant later attempted to fix a new valuation of ₹50,000 for the partition relief, the Registry objected, arguing that such valuation contradicted the already declared jurisdictional value.
Hence, the court denied to amend the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi by the Supreme Court
In partition suits, plaintiffs and their advocates often assume that a fixed court fee applies under Article 17-B of Schedule II, and hence they do not mention the specific valuation of the relief claimed. Possibly due to this belief, the plaintiff in the present case mentioned only the jurisdictional value as ₹15 lakhs
However, upon scrutiny, the Court observed that the suit does not fall under Article 17-B, but rather under Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Under this provision, an ad valorem court fee is required, calculated as a percentage of the value of the relief sought
When such an error comes to light, the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to amend the plaint, specifically to state the valuation of the relief so that the correct court fee can be calculated.
The Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court's view that the jurisdictional value of ₹15 lakhs should be treated as the value for court fee purposes—was incorrect. The Court emphasized that when a suit falls under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act must also be considered.
From this combined reading, it is clear that:
The value for court fee purposes must be determined first, and
The jurisdictional value must then be based on the court fee valuation, Not the other way around.
Furthermore, the Court held that when a case falls under Section 7(iv)(b) or Section 7(iv)(c), the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint to fix a proper valuation.
Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant may pay court fees based on a valuation of ₹50,000 as per the law.
