Last Updated: Thursday January 03, 2008
Suits’ Valuation Act, 1887
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents of Suits
valuation Act at a glance
|
Sections |
Contents |
|
|
Preamble |
|
1 |
Title |
|
|
PART I |
|
2 |
Extent and commencement of Part I |
|
3 |
Power of Provincial Government to make rules determining
value of land for jurisdictional purposes |
|
4 |
Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to land not
to exceed the value of the land |
|
5 |
Making and enforcement of rules |
|
6 |
Omitted |
|
|
PART II |
|
7 |
Extent and commencement of Part II |
|
8 |
Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in
certain suits. |
|
9 |
Determination of value of certain suits by High Court |
|
10 |
Repealed |
|
|
PART III |
|
11 |
Procedure where objection is taken on appeal or revision
that a suit or appeal was not properly valued for jurisdiction purposes |
|
12 |
Proceedings pending at commencement of Part I or Part II. |
Preamble
The Suits’
Valuation Act, 1887
(VII of 1887)
An Act to
prescribe the mode
valuing certain
suits for the purpose of
determining the
jurisdiction of Courts with respect thereto.
Preamble.
Whereas
it is expedient to prescribe the mode of valuing certain suits for the purpose
of determining the jurisdiction of Courts with respect thereto: It is hereby
enacted as follows:-
Preamble : Repugnancy to
Injunctions of Islam-Payment of court‑fee on plaints, memorandums of
appeal etc. was declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by Federal
Shariat Court which decision was subject‑matter of appeal before Supreme
Court- High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could not implement decision of
Federal Shariat Court in the matter of repugnancy of provisions of Court Fees
Act, 1870, and Suits Valuation Act, 1887, unless Supreme Court wherein appeal
against said decision was pending confirmed the decision. High Court is not
empowered to declare any provision of any Add to be repugnant to the
Injunctions of Islam as such jurisdiction exclusively vests in Federal Shariat
Court-So long as provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, are on the statute book
and are not declared un‑Islamic by the Supreme Court, plaintiffs,
applicants and appellants will have to pay court‑fee in the law Courts.
1993 C L C 706
PLD 1991 SC 1145; 1992 SCMR 1273; PLD 1988 Kar.169; 1990
CLC 1683; PLD 1989 Kar. 304; PLD 1988 SC 287; PLD 1991 SC 280; 1992 CLC 2270;
PLD 1992 SC 64; 1991 MLD 863; 1990 MLD 2304 and 1987 SCMR 1161 ref.
1. Title
This Act may be called the Suits
Valuation Act, 1887.
2. Extent and commencement of Part I
This part shall extend to such
local areas, and come into force therein on such dates, as the Provincial
Government, by notification in the official Gazette, directs.
PART -- I SUITS RELATING TO LAND
|
3. Power of Provincial
Government to make rules determining value of land for jurisdictional purposes
(1) The
Provincial Government may make rules for determining the value of land for
purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870,
Section 7, paragraphs (v) and (vi) and paragraph (x), clause (d).
(2)
The rules may determine the value of any class of land, or of any interest in
land, in the whole or any part of a local area and may prescribe different
values for different places within the same local area.
(1) The
Provincial Government may make rules for determining the value of land for
purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870,
Section 7, paragraphs (v) and (vi) and paragraph (x), clause (d).
(2) The
rules may determine the value of any class of land, or of any interest in land,
in the whole or any part of a local area and may prescribe different values for
different places within the same local area.
Rules framed
by Punjab Government under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for
determining valuation of suits for purpose of jurisdiction falling under S.
7(v), Court Fees Act, 1870-Applicability/non-applicability of such rules to
areas forming part of former Bahawalpur State-Provision of Art. 19, Province of
West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, postulated that all existing laws as
defined in explanation attached thereto, which had earlier been applicable to
territories, forming part of West Pakistan Province, were to remain in force in
territories of Provinces created in consequence of dissolution of West Pakistan
Province, as they were applicable before-Rules framed by Provincial Government
of Punjab under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for determining of value of
suits for purpose of jurisdiction for suits falling under S.7(v), Court- Fees
Act, 1870, were thus, applicable to areas of former Bahawalpur State now
forming part of Province of Punjab.
1997 C L C 2034 PLD
1962 (W.P), BJ 33 overruled.
Pre-emption
suit-Jurisdictional value- Determination-Land was assessed to land revenue,
but for some reason, the same was not recovered for being
exempted-Jurisdictional value would be determined in accordance with the
assessment of land revenue. P L D 2002 AJ&K 1 2000
YLR 2104 ref
Pecuniary
jurisdiction in pre-emption suit-Determination of-Pecuniary jurisdiction in
pre-emption suit was not to be determined by market values or sale
considerations-Such suit has to be valued for purposes of court-fee under
S.7(v) & (vi), Court Fees Act, 1870 and for purposes of jurisdictional
valuation under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Initial value was within
pecuniary jurisdiction of Trial Court and it rightly entertained such suit-Valuation
of original suit as determined under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887 for
purposes of jurisdiction would be the determining factor and not market value
.or sale price of subject-matter of suit . 1997 C L C 768
PLD 1985 SC 393 rel.
Value of
suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction-Suit was valued at
specified amount and none of the parties raised any objection thereto-Trial
Court determined excess value of suit keeping in view prices increase with
passage of time-Such presumption was not permissible in the eye of
law-Presumption to that effect could not be made and enforced legally and
Judicially in absence of any evidence in support thereof. Finding of Trial
Court regarding valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction
was not sustainable in circumstances. 1995 M L D 690
Suit for possession Where
suit for possession was based on title, its jurisdictional value would be
according to the market value of the property. 1992 M LD 1301
Valuation
for purposes of jurisdiction-Method of determining valuation of
subject-matter of suit for purposes of jurisdiction regarding suit for
possession of immovable property (including suit for possession by pre-emption)
in cases where land was permanently assessed to land revenue, valuation would
be calculated thirty times of the land revenue-In cases where land was not
permanently settled valuation would be calculated at fifteen times of the net
profits if such net profits had accrued during preceding year-In cases not
covered by the said two situations, market value would be the jurisdictional
value of the suit as also the appeal-Valuation as given in plaint, however,
would determine forum for filing of appeal-Where Trial Court determines
valuation for purposes of jurisdiction, it would be that valuation which would
determine the forum of appeal.
PLD 1979 SC 821; 1983 CLC 993;
PLD 1984 SC 289; PLD 1985 SC 393 and PLD 1987 SC 284 ref.
Mode for
determining forum of appeal- One method for determining forum of appeal
would be as per valuation fixed by plaintiff himself in the plaint; other
method would be as per valuation determined by the Court-Where valuation was
determined by the original Court, 'forum of appeal would be determined by that
valuation and not by valuation fixed by the plaintiff or as per rules framed
under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887. 1993 M L D 2105
1979 CLC 578; PLD 1992 Lah.89,
PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah.1088 and PLD 1964 (W.P.) Pesh. 228 ref.
Forum of appeal,
Original valuation as fixed in the plaint to be effective and 'valid to
determine forum of appeal, irrespective of the fact that the sale price finally
fixed by the Court exceeds the value given in the plaint. Valuation of suit
property thus fixed in plaint is not provisional but permanent and same cannot
be changed with fixation of its market value or sale price at higher
rate-Jurisdictional value fixed in plaint being Rs.90 (Ninety), same would
remain intact for ascertaining the forum of appeal. Difference between the sale
price fixed by the Court and the one prayed for in the appeal to be fixed would
not change the valuation shown in the plaint-First Appeal before High Court, in
a case wherein jurisdictional value fixed in plaint was Rs.90 (Ninety) was thus
not competent and accordingly appeal was returned to appellant for presentation
to a proper forum. It is manifest that the original valuation as fixed in the
plaint would be effective and valid to determine the forum of appeal
irrespective of the fact that the sale price finally fixed by the Court exceeds
the value given in the plaint. Under Order XX, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure
Code when the Court decrees a claim of pre-emption then it has to specify a day
on or before which the sale price assessed by the Court is to be deposited. It
cannot be said that the legislature had not in view this provision of law while
fixing the jurisdictional value in case of land suit on the basis of land
revenue and not according to the market value as it has done in case of house
and garden under section 7(v)(e) of the Court Fees Act. The court-fee in
pre-emption cases in matter of land suit will be calculated at the rate of 10
times of the land revenue which is payable. The jurisdictional value in land
case is fixed under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act and the relevant rules
framed in this respect provide the jurisdictional value in land case as 30
times the revenue so payable. In the case of the present nature the value for
purpose of jurisdiction is fixed at 30 times of the land revenue. The value
thus fixed cannot be altered as there i$ no such provision in the Suits
Valuation Act. This value is not provisional but is permanent and cannot be
changed with fixation of market value or sale price at much higher rate than
it. If the intention of the legislature had been otherwise then like house and
garden, its jurisdictional value could have been fixed according to the market
value. The jurisdictional value for purposes of appeal would not alter merely
because the appellant challenges the market value of the suit property which
happens to be much more than the value determined for jurisdiction in the
plaint. The argument that the difference between the sale price fixed by the
Court and the one sought or prayed for in the appeal to be fixed will be
adopted for determining the jurisdictional value for appeal will not hold good
in view of the clear provision of section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance,
1962 wherein the determining factor for such valuation is the value of the
original suit as no other standard or criterion has been provided for any
change in such valuation. The, rule expounded in the two judgments of the
Supreme Court reported in P L D 1987 S C 284 and P L D 1985 S C.393 .is also to
this effect. In the present case the jurisdictional value fixed in the plaint
is Rs.90 which will remain intact for ascertaining the forum of appeal and the
difference between the sale price fixed by the Court and the one prayed for in
the appeal to be fixed would not change the said valuation in the plaint Appeal
in High Court, held, was not competent in circumstances which was returned to
appellant for presentation to a proper forum.
P L D 1989 Pesh. 247
PLD 1985 and PLD 1987 SC 284 rel.
Valuation of suit not determined
on basis of evidence brought on record by respective parties-Held. after value
of suit was correctly ascertained and proper court-fee paid by plaintiff, it
could then be determined as to whether IInd class Court or Ist class Court
would deal with it.. 1988 MLD 864
Value of
original suit- Determining factor-For ascertaining the forum of appeals in
such suit under S.18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, value
of the original suit as determined under the rules framed under S.3 of Suits
Valuation Act, 1887, for purposes of jurisdiction is the determining factor and
not the market value. 2001 Y L R 1859
In the case the
land is assessed to land revenue the court-fee is computed under clauses
7(v)(a) and (b) and if not assessed to land revenue the court-fee is computed
in accordance with section 7(v)(d) of the Court Fees Act and valuation of the
suit is determined under section 8 of Suits Valuation Act.A cursory reading of
section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 will show that the suits covered by
section 7, paras.(v), (vi) (pre-emption suits) and (ix) and (x), clause (d) of
the Court Fees Act, 1870 are explicitly ,excluded from the operation of section
8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Therefore, for determining the pecuniary
jurisdiction in a pre-emption suit the proper section applicable will be
section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, and the rules made thereunder. Actual
payment of land revenue is not mandatory portion of the procedure laid down for
assessing suit valuation. It is the land revenue which is .payable to the
Government and not its actual payment which is key to the procedure for
valuation this is clear from the fact that in the subsequent provision the word
"payable" and not "being paid" has been used. 2000 Y L R
2104 1999 CLC 1108; 1995 SCR 208 and PLD 1981 SC
(AJ&K) 55 ref.
Where land in
pre-emption suit was not assessed to land revenue, value of such land for
purposes of court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction of Court, held, would be
worked out at fifteen times of net profits arising out of such land during year
next before presentation of plaint in pre-emption suit-Valuation so assessed
admittedly being far less than pecuniary jurisdiction of Appellate Court below,
appeal filed before such Court, was quite competent-Returning of appeal by
Appellate Court for presentation to High Court, wrongly assuming that appeal
was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction was not justified-Appeal would be deemed
still pending in Appellate Court. 1986 M L D 2576
Pre-emption suit. Value
of suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee –Determination- Fundamental
duty of plaintiff/pre-emptor to fix value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction
and court fee according to provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, and Suits
Valuation Act, 1887-Value for purposes of court: fee was to be fixed under
S.7(vi), Court Fees Act, 1870-Value for purposes of jurisdiction of suit,
falling under S. 7(v) (vi) (ix) (x), and cl. (d) of Court Fees Act, 1870, would
not be the same as it was to be fixed under S.3 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887.
1999 Y L R 2668 PLD 1981 A J&K 55 ref.
Pecuniary
jurisdiction in pre - emption suit-Determination of-Pecuniary jurisdiction
in pre.emption suit was not to be determined by market values or sale
considerations-Such suit has to be valued for purposes of court.fee under
S.7(v) & (vi), Court Fees Act, 1870 and for purposes of jurisdictional
valuation under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887. 1997 C L C 76
Pre-emotion-Valuation-Jurisdiction
- Suits for pre-emotion of land Governed by S. 3 of Act (VII of 1887)-Value of
land for jurisdictional purpose-To be determined in accordance with rules if
made by Provincial Government-Court Fees Act VII of 1870, S. 7 (v) &
(vi). P L D 1980 Lah.471
Return of
plaint by Trial Court after granting decree in suit, on question of valuation.
Validity-Effect-Trial Court after passing decree in suit had become functus
officio, therefore, it could not have returned plaint-Person aggrieved against
such decree could have availed remedy of appeal and revision-Trial Court in
earlier round of litigation itself could not have directed return of plaint without
expressly recalling decree in question, which was not done-Order of return of
plaint was, thus, without jurisdiction-Suit originally valued, however, was
within jurisdiction of Trial Court in first round of litigation-Valuation of
the original suit as determined under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for
purposes of jurisdiction would be the determining factor and not market value
or sale price of subject. matter of suit-First Trial Court's view that parties
having agreed that pre.emption amount be fixed at specified amount, therefore,
Court lacked jurisdiction was incorrect-Plaintiff being successful pre-emptor
and he alone being not responsible for the events which took place after the
decree, was entitled to equity-Plaintiffs failure to deposit decretal amount in
first round of litigation (due to subsequent return of plaint to him) being due
to the act of Court, he would be entitled to extension of time-Time as granted
to plaintiff to deposit decretal amount and his decree in first round of
litigation was restored.
Jurisdictional
value- Forum of appeal, determination of-Original valuation as fixed in the
plaint to be effective and 'valid to determine forum of appeal, irrespective of
the fact that the sale price finally fixed by the Court exceeds the value given
in the plaint-Valuation of suit property thus fixed in plaint is not
provisional but permanent and same cannot be changed with fixation of its
market value or sale price at higher rate-Jurisdictional value fixed in plaint
being Rs.90 (Ninety), same would remain intact for ascertaining the forum of
appeal-Difference between the sale price fixed by the Court and the one prayed
for in the appeal to be fixed would not change the valuation shown in the
plaint-First Appeal before High Court, in a case wherein jurisdictional value
fixed in plaint was Rs.90 (Ninety) was thus not competent and accordingly
appeal was returned to appellant for presentation to a proper forum.
It is manifest
that the original valuation as fixed in the plaint would be effective and valid
to determine the forum of appeal irrespective of the fact that the sale price
finally fixed by the Court exceeds the value given in the plaint. Under Order
XX, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code when the Court decrees a claim of
pre.emption then it has to specify a day on or before which the sale price
assessed by the Court is to be deposited. It cannot be said that the legislature
had not in view this provision of law while fixing the jurisdictional value in
case of land suit on the basis of land revenue and not according to the market
value as it has done in case of house and garden under section 7(v)(e) of the
Court Fees Act. The court.fee in pre.emption cases in matter of land suit will
be calculated at the rate of 10 times of the land revenue which is payable. The
jurisdictional value in land case is fixed under section 3 of the Suits
Valuation Act and the relevant rules framed in this respect provide the
jurisdictional value in land case as 30 times the revenue so payable. In the
case of the present nature the value for purpose of jurisdiction is fixed at 30
times of the land revenue. The value thus fixed cannot be altered as there is
no such provision in the Suits Valuation Act. This value is not provisional but
is permanent and cannot be changed with fixation of market value or sale price
at much higher rate than it. If the intention of the legislature had been
otherwise then like house and garden 'its jurisdictional value could have been
fixed according to the market value. The jurisdictional value for purposes of
appeal would not alter merely because the appellant challenges the market value
of the suit property which happens to be much more than the value determined
for jurisdiction in the plaint. The argument that the difference between the
sale price fixed by the Court and the one sought or prayed for in the appeal to
be fixed will be adopted for determining the jurisdictional value for appeal
will not hold good in view of the clear provision of section 18 of the Civil
Courts Ordinance, 1962 wherein the determining factor for such valuation is the
value of the original suit as no other standard or criterion has been provided
for any change in such valuation. The, rule expounded in the two judgments of
the Supreme Court reported in P L D 1987 S C 284 and P L D 1985 S C.393 .is
also to this effect. In the present case the jurisdictional value fixed in the
plaint is Rs.90 which will remain intact for ascertaining the forum of appeal
and the difference between the sale price fixed by the Court and the one prayed
for in the appeal to be fixed would not change the said valuation in the plaint
Appeal in High Court, held, was not competent in circumstances which was
returned to appellant for presentation to a proper forum.
Jurisdictional value of appeal
in suits for pre-emption, held, remained as determined under Suits Valuation
Act, 1887 and Rules framed thereunder-Such determination was notwithstanding
amount on payment of which decree for pre-emption had been passed being far in
excess of pecuniary jurisdiction as so determined. 1986 M L D 606
P L D 1960 Lah. 1088 and P L D
1964 Pesh. 228 ref.
Competency
of appeal-Where land in pre-emption suit was not assessed to land revenue,
value of such land for purposes of court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction of
Court, held, would be worked out at fifteen times of net profits arising out of
such land during year next before presentation of plaint in pre-emption
suit-Valuation so assessed admittedly being far less than pecuniary
jurisdiction of Appellate Court below, appeal filed before such Court, was
quite competent-Returning of appeal by Appellate Court for presentation to High
Court, wrongly assuming that appeal was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction was
not justified-Appeal would be deemed still pending in Appellate Court. 1986
M L D 2576
Market value-Actual
price at which land was sold was less than pecuniary jurisdiction of trial
Court when suit was instituted-Not proved from record that market value of land
was more than-the amount of actual sale nor any such issue was framed nor
parties were given any opportunity to lead evidence on this point-Value of
subject-matter if increased, during pendency of suit, Court, held, would not
lose jurisdiction-Jurisdiction once assumed was not taken away by increase in
value of subject-matter and Court could proceed with adjudication of suit-Mere
fact that land was shown to have been sold at a larger amount, would not
necessarily mean that it was its market value. 1986 M L D 342
P L D 1965 Lah. 359 and P L D
1962 Dacca 14 rel.
Non obstante clause in S. 14
of Act, 1964- Meaning and scope-Expression "non obstante" means
"notwithstanding" or "in spite of"-Object of opening words
in S. 14 of West Pakistan Family Courts, 1964 is (i) to exclude application of
Suits Valuation Act, 1887 which determines value of suit for purpose of
jurisdiction, and (ii) Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 18 which
determines forum of appeal-Determination of pecuniary jurisdiction by appellate
Court with reference to Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and Punjab Civil Courts
Ordinance, 1962 was therefore erroneous. Appellate Court, held, could hear
appeal-Case remanded to appellate Court to hear appeal and decide on merits
according to law within specified time. P L D 1985 Lah. 491
P L D 1972 Kar. 401 ; P L D 1981
S C 454 and P L D 1979 Lah. 603 ref.
Determination of jurisdictional value of suit sought to be
resolved by reference to S. 3 of Suits Valuation Act 1887 and rules framed
thereunder or on basis of sale price/ market value of suit land-Held,
jurisdictional value of suit was . to he determined by S. 3 of Snits Valuation
Act_ 1887 and not by sale price/market value of suit property-Appeal from
judgment and decree of trial Court was returned to appellant for presentation
to competent Court in circumstances. P L D 1985 Lah. 494 P L
D 1960 Lah. 1088 ; P L D 1976 Lah. 1.; 1974 S C M R 188 and P L D 1976 Lah. 1
ref.
Jurisdictional
value-Determination of-Land having been assessed to land revenue,
jurisdictional value, held, must be determined on basis of 30 times of land
revenue assessed. Person who seeks equity must come to Court with clean
hands-Petitioner's hands being soiled with fraud, there was no equity in their
favour-Even if there had been some irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by
trial Court, High Court would not have exercised equitable discretionary
jurisdiction in favour of petitioners. 1985 M L D 414
Valuation of suit, objection to-
Plaintiff- pre-emptor fixing a certain value for suit but defendants (vendees)
not seriously objecting to jurisdictional value fixed by plaintiffs either in
trial Court or in appellate Court-Such objection, held, cannot be raised in
second appeal.
1981 C L C 814
P L D 1960 Lab. 1088 rel.
Duty of
Court - Contention that respondents themselves having valued suit at a sum
beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Court, cannot be allowed to plead otherwise in
defence held, had no force-Such a concession, or admission can neither confer
any jurisdiction upon Court, where it has none, nor can take away jurisdiction,
from Court where it vests-Evidence on record to prove ratio of which, valuation
can be assessed-Held, duty of Court to discover valuation in order to find out
whether it has really any jurisdiction over matter or not. 1980
C L C 589
Jurisdiction-Pre-emption
suits-Suits for accounts-Basis of valuation-Different-View that value of
pre-emption suits fixed according to provisions of Suits Valuation Act, 1887,
is tentative, as in account suits, and Court finding value of property
exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction ceases to have jurisdiction to pass
decree, held, not acceptable-Value of pre-emption suits-Fixed not tentatively
but according to fifteen times the net profits arising during year previous to
presentation of plaint-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21-[Muhammad
Afzal Khan v. Nand Lal 16 P R 1908 dissented from].-[Pre-emption-Jurisdiction].
Judgments in account suits are not relevant in a suit for possession by way of
pre-emption of agricultural land. The account suits are valued on different
premises and the same cannot be applied to pre-emption suits. In such cases
plaintiff tentatively fixes the value of the suit for purposes of court-fee.
under section 7 paragraph (iv) of the Court Fees Act. However, if the amount
decreed in such a suit is more than the approximate value fixed in the plaint
the decree cannot be executed as provided in section 11 of the Court Fees Act
until the consequent difference in court-fee is paid. Therefore, in account
suits the value fixed in the plaint is the value of the original suit if the
amount decreed is not in excess of that. If, however, the amount exceeds then
that amount becomes the value of the suit. The forum of the appeal is to be
determined on such value. The view that the value of a pre-emption suit is
tentatively fixed is not acceptable. There is no provision of law to that
effect. In suit for account there is a specific provision to that effect in
Order VII, rule 2, C. P. C. Section 11 of the Court Fees Act also does not
apply to a pre-emption suit. The Legislature when it enacted the Court Fees Act
and the Suits Valuation Act was conscious of the special features of pre-emption.
In a pre-emption suit no decree for possession can be passed unless there is a
direction for payment by the preemptor of the market value or the sale price
as the case may be. the Legislature in a case where the suit for pre-emption is
about a house or garden fixed the value of the suit on the basis of market
value or the sale price. It could fix the value of pre-emption suit for the
agricultural land also on the market value or the sale price. It, however, did
not do so and by ignoring the market value or the price for the purposes of
court-fee and jurisdiction in respect of suits relating to agricultural land,
provided for the fixation of notional value under the Court Fees Act and also
under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act. P L D 1976 Lah. 1
A I R 1934 Lah. 488 and A I R
1934 Lah. 545 held not applicable.
4. Valuation of relief in certain suits
relating to land not to exceed the value of the land
Where a suit mentioned in
the Court Fees Act, 1873, Section 7, paragraph (iv), or Schedule II, Article 17
'[or 22] relates to land or an interest in land of which the value has been
determined by rules under the last foregoing section, the amount at which for
purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not
exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules.
Pre-emotion-Valuation-Jurisdiction
- Suits for pre-emotion of land-Governed by S. 3 of Act (VII of 1887)-Value of
land for jurisdictional purpose-To be determined in accordance with rules if
made by Provincial Government-Court Fees Act VII of 1870, S. 7 (v) & (vi).
P L D 1980 Lah. 471
Valuation of
suit not determined on basis of evidence brought on record by respective
parties-Held. after value of suit was correctly ascertained and proper
court-fee paid by plaintiff, it could then be determined as to whether IInd
class Court or Ist class Court would deal with it. 1988 MLD 864
Plaintiff seeking to avoid
payment claimed by defendants-Value of subject-matter, held, should be amount
claimed by defendants-Plaintiff cannot be permitted to pay court-fee on amount
eventually found due and payable to defendants 1984 C L C 440
5. Making and enforcement of rules
(1)
The Provincial Government shall, before making rules under Section 3, consult
the High Court with respect thereto.
(2)
A rule under that Section shall not take effect till the expiration of one
month after the rule has been Published in the official Gazette.
6. [Omitted ]
Legal Amendments
1.
S.6 Omitted by G. G. 0. 4 of 1949, Schedule.
PART -- II OTHER SUITS
|
7. Extent and' commencement of Part II
This Part
extends to the whole of Pakistan and shall come into force on the 1st day of
July, 1887.
8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional value
to be the same in certain suits
Where in suits
other those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section, 7, paragraphs (v)
(vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x), clause (d). Court-fees are payable ad Valorem
under the Court Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation
of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.
Valuation
fixed for court-fee-To be valued for purpose of jurisdiction as well-Relief
sought for by plaintiff even if falling within S. 7(iv) (c) & (d) of Court
Fees Act 1870, plaintiff in. view of S. 8, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, held,
bound to fix same value for purposes of court-fee as well. P L D 1980
Karachi 492 P L D 1959 Pesh. 101 ref.
Rejection
of plaint - Plaintiff in the plaint had given value of the suit for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction as Rs.200-Trial Court did not direct the
plaintiff to correct the valuation and without such direction plaint was
rejected by the Trial Court-Appellate Court returned memo. of appeal on the ground
that the suit was undervalued-Validity -Where Trial Court had not directed the
correction of court fee the valuation of the suit in the plaint would be taken
as the basis for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court as
well as of the forum of appeal till its determination by the Court- Appellate
Court was not correct in taking the value of the suit at Rs.6 lacs and
directing the return of the memo of appeal-Order passed by Appellate Court
whereby memo of appeal was returned was set aside in revision. Valuation
of suit for the purposes of court-fee -Conferring pecuniary
jurisdiction-Correction of valuation-Jurisdiction of Trial Court under O. VII,
R. II, C. P.C. -Suit for declaration-Effect of provisions of S.8 of Suits
Valuation Act, 1887 read with S.7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act, 1870 and O. VII,
R.11, C. P. C. is that value of, suit in a suit for declaration has to be
determined on the basis of relief claimed for but if the value placed by the
plaintiff in the plaint is arbitrary, same is rectifiable by exercising the
power of review by the Trial Court under O. VII, R.11, C. P. C. -In absence of
any such review or determination, the value of suit given by plaintiff in the
plaint is to be taken as the basis for conferring pecuniary jurisdiction on
Trial Court as well as on the Appellate Court. 1987 SCMR 1263; PLD 1985
SC 393; 1982 CLC 1162; PLD 1987 Lah. 512; 1995 CLC 1874; 1990 CLC 2183 and PLD-
1976 Lah. 1 rel.
Suit for rendition of account-Valuation
of suit for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction of Court-Return of memorandum
of appeal-Value of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at
Rs.200 in the plaint-Trial Court while passing preliminary decree had observed
that suit fell under S.7(iv)(f) of Court Fees Act, 1887 and valuation as given
in the plaint, though was correct, but plaintiff would be liable to court-fee
on amount found due from defendant/appellant at the time of passing of final
decree-Appellate Court on appeal against said preliminary decree, set aside finding
of Trial Court on issue of court-fee holding that suit amount being,
Rs.8,00,000 suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction should have been
valued, according to suit amount and sent case to Trial Court for ordering
plaintiff to make up the deficiency in court-fee-Plaintiff paid additional fee
on the plaint, but when case was resubmitted to Appellate Court it r-turned
memo. of appeal holding that court-fee having been fixed at Rs.8,00,000, it had
no jurisdiction to hear appeal on that amount and same could be heard by High
Court -Validity-Value of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction having
been fixed at Rs.200 in the plaint, Appellate Court below was not justified in
holding that value for purposes of court-fee was Rs.8,00,000 and that appeal
lay to High Court-Plaintiff, according to S.7(iv)(1) of Court Fees Act, 1870,
was entitled to fix notional value for purpose of court-fee which, according to
S.8 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, would also be the value for jurisdiction and
not the value which plaintiff was required by O.VII, R.2, C.P.C. to state an
approximate amount which according to him would be payable by defendant-Forum
of appeal was dependent not on amount mentioned under O.VII, R.2, C.P.C. but on
valuation fixed by plaintiff for purposes of courtfee and jurisdiction-When a
final decree was passed only then the Court could require plaintiff to pay
difference between court-fees actually paid and fee which would have been
payable on the amount decreed-Appeal having been filed against preliminary
decree, at that stage valuation could not be finally determined-Appeal, in
circumstances, lay to Appellate Court below and not to the High
Court-Memorandum of appeal which was returned illegally, was directed to be
returned to Appellate Court below to be decided according to law. 2000 C L C
1598 1979 CLC 95 and AIR 1946 Lah. 280 ref.
Principles. In the
case the land is assessed to land revenue the court-fee is computed under
clauses 7(v)(a) and (b) and if not assessed to land revenue the court-fee is
computed in accordance with section 7(v)(d) of the Court Fees Act and valuation
of the suit is determined under section 8 of Suits Valuation Act. A cursory
reading of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 will show that the suits
covered by section 7, paras.(v), (vi) (pre-emption suits) and (ix) and (x),
clause (d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 are explicitly ,excluded from the
operation of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Therefore, for
determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in a pre-emption suit the proper section
applicable will be section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, and the rules made
thereunder. Actual payment of land revenue is not mandatory portion of the
procedure laid down for assessing suit valuation. It is the land revenue which
is .payable to the Government and not its actual payment which is key to the
procedure for valuation this is clear from the fact that in the subsequent
provision the word "payable" and not "being paid" has been
used. 2000 Y L R 2104 1999 CLC 1108; 1995 SCR 208 and PLD 1981 SC
(AJ&K) 55 ref.
Forum of
appeal - Suit valued for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 200 and in
decree-sheet value shown as Rs. 25,000-Trial Court passing decree in favour of
appellant for possession through preemption directing that he would be liable
to deposit a total sum of Rs. 95,999 comprising Rs. 25,000 as sale price and
Rs. 70,999 as value of improvements made on land - Appellant depositing Rs.
25,000 towards sale price but challenging decision of Court as regards payment
of amount towards improvements-Decree having been passed in suit of which
jurisdictional value was determined and fixed, forum of appeal would not be
altered merely because the aggrieved plain tiff/pre-emptor sought to challenge
decision of original Court in respect of claim regarding improvements made in
subject-matter of sale - Rule laid down in Illahi Bakhsh's case P L D 1985 S C
393, held, governed the case and, therefore, High Court rightly declined to
entertain appeal on basis that the value of the suit in which decree was passed
was such that the appeal lay to District Judge-Appeal dismissed. P L D 1987
S. C 284
P L D 1985 S C 393 rel.
Suit for
account In
a suit for accounts the plaintiff is at liberty to value the suit as he
pleases. It is open to the plaintiff to value his suit for the purposes of
court-fees at any figure lie chooses. Keeping the provisions of section
7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act in juxtaposition with section 8 of the Suits
Valuation Act, the value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction must be the
same. The value given in the plaint in suits for accounts is merely tentative,
and is not to be fixed according to the approximate amount due after
settlement of accounts. The plaintiff sued the defendant for rupees four lacs
payable on rendition of accounts and valued the suit for purposes of court-fee
at the fixed rate of Rs. 15 and fixed the value for purposes of jurisdiction at
Rs. 200. The defendant applied under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940,
for stay of the suit but the request was dismissed by Senior Civil Judge. The
defendant filed appeal to High Court under section 39, Arbitration Act. It was
argued by the plaintiff that since the value of the original suit was less than
Rs. 200 for purposes of jurisdiction the appeal against the dismissal of
application under section 3-1, Arbitration Act would lie to the District
Judge in view of section 18, West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962: Held,
for the purpose of choosing the forum of appeal the appellant in suit for
accounts is to be guided only by the value for purposes of jurisdiction, which
has been put by the plaintiff. The value for the purposes of jurisdiction as
fixed by the plaintiff at Rs. 200 is to be taken into consideration for
choosing the forum of the appeal. As such an appeal under section 18 of the
West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, lies to the Court of District
Judge. P L D 1969 Pesh. 175
A I R 1949 Cal. 179 ; P L D 1954
Bal. 37 ; A I R 1935 Lah. 689; A I R 1937 Rang. 320 and A I R 1937 Lah. 694
ref.
9. Determination of value of certain suits
by High Court
When the
subject‑matter of suits of any class, other than suits mentioned in the
Court Fee Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs (v) and (vi), and paragraph (x),
clause (d), is such that in the opinion of the High Court it does not admit of
being satisfactory valued the High Court may, with the previous sanction of the
Provincial Government, direct that suits of that class shall, for the purposes
of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and of this Act and any other enactment for the
time being in force, be treated as if their subject‑matter were of such
value as the High Court thinks fit to specify in this behalf.
Value for purposes of
jurisdiction where plaintiff is in joint possession- the value for
jurisdictional purposes of a suit for partition is the value of the plaintiff's
share in the joint property, where the plaintiff is in joint possession.
The above view was based mainly on the application of the principle that the
value of suit for purposes of jurisdiction is to be determined by the value of
the relief sought, and further, on the necessity to avoid the anomaly arising
out the other view (viz., that such value is the value of the entire estate)
when compared with provisions of section 7 (vi-A), Court Fees Act, 1870, which
prescribes the value of the plaintiff's share as the value for jurisdiction
where the plaintiff is excluded from possession. P L D 1961 S.C 349
9 D L R 190 and P L D 1960 Dacca
565 approved.
Value for purposes of court fee
and jurisdiction must be the same. P L D 1960 (W. P.) Lah. 327
Rule 10 of
the rules framed by the Lahore High Court-Two different values for Court-fee
and jurisdiction can be fixed. Suits for cancellation of decrees are suits, the
value of which cannot be satisfactorily ascertained under section 9 of the
Suits Valuation Act and therefore, different values can be fixed in respect of
such a suit for purposes of Court-fee and Suits Valuation Act. P L D
1949 Lah. 461
10. [Repealed]
Legal Amendments
1.
S.10. Rep. by the Amending Act, 1891 (XII of 1891. S. 2).
PART --- III SUPPLEMENTAL
PROVISIONS
|
11. Procedure where
objection is taken on appeal or revision that a suit or appeal was not properly
valued for jurisdiction purposes
(1)
Notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an
objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit or
appeal a.-Court of first instance or lower Appellate Court which had not
jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with
respect thereto shall not be entertained by an Appellate Court unless-
a)
the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing
at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in the lower Appellate Court
in the memorandum of appeal to that Court, or
(b)
the Appellate Court is satisfied, for reason to be recorded by it in writing,
that the suit or appeal was over-valued or under-valued, and that the over-valuation
or under valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit
or appeal on its merits.
Provided that : (1)
in a suit for accounts the value for purposes of jurisdiction as determined by
the Court at any stage of the trial shall be final and conclusive and shall not
be liable to be contested in appeal or revision.
(2)
If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in clause (a), sub-section
(1), but the Appellate Court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned
in Clause (b) of that sub - section and has before
it the materials necessary for the determination of the other
grounds of appeal to itself, it shall dispose of the appeal as if
there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the
Court of first instance of lower Appellate Court.
(3)
If the objection was taken in that manner and the Appellate Court is satisfied
as to both those matters and has not those materials before it, it shall
proceed to deal with the appeal under the rules applicable to the Court with
respect to the hearing of appeals; but if remands the suit or appeal, or frames
and refers issues trial, or requires additional evidence entertain the suit or
appeal.
(4)
The provisions of this section with
respect to an Appellate Court shall, so far as they can be made applicable,
apply to a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 622 of the
Code of Civil Procedure or other enactment for the time being in force.
This section
extends to the whole of Pakistan, and shall come into force on the first day of
July, 1887.
Objection
in appeal - In appeal objection to pecuniary incompetence, held, could be
taken only where such objection was raised in Trial Court itself or where as a
result thereof, some prejudice was caused to party concerned.
Jurisdiction-Objection
to-Where jurisdiction of Court was not assailed on basis of incorrect
jurisdictional value in the written statement, the same could not be questioned
afterwards. 1992 M LD 1301
Value of
suit for purpose of court-fee- Value of suit for purpose of court-fee does
not bring a suit within the jurisdiction of the Court where the subject-matter
of the suit exceeds its pecuniary limits of jurisdiction.
Forum of
appeal - Embargo in specific terms has been placed upon entertainment of
objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts below in the
circumstances stated in S. 11, Suits Valuation Act, 1887 unless and until the
Appellate Court was satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing, that
the suit or appeal was overvalued or undervalued and overvalue and undervalue
thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its
merits. 2001 Y L R 1859 PLD 1985 SC 393 ref.
Over-valuation
or under-valuation of a suit or appeal- If objection in respect of
over-valuation was not raised in the Trial Court before or at the time of
framing the issues and in the Appellate Court in the memorandum of appeal, same
could not be raised afterwards. 2001 Y L R 3280
Leave to appeal was granted to
consider the contentions that after holding order of First Appellate Court to
be beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, proper order of the High Court should
have been to return appeal to plaintiffs for proper presentation and in that
case defendants would have been in a position to contest the same, inter alia,
on the ground of limitation; that High Court erred in striking off all the issues
except specific issue and thereby defendants had been prejudicially affected in
their rights. P L D 1996 S C 292
Jurisdiction
to hear appeal - First Appellate Court during course of hearing of appeal
found that valuation had not been properly fixed and suit had been under valued
- Direction of First Appellate Court that suit should be valued at specified
amount and court-fee be recovered from plaintiffs was fully covered by
provisions of S.11, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, therefore, plaintiffs could not
be non-suited on the ground that on account of correction of valuation, First
Appellate Court had lost jurisdiction to hear and decide appeal - Plaintiffs
having themselves applied before lower Appellate Court, it becomes clear that
suit was under-valued - Defendants (respondent before First Appellate Court)
did mot object to jurisdiction of First Appellate Court to hear appeal on
account of enhancement in valuation of suit and appeal - Objection to
jurisdiction of First Appellate Court to hear appeal on ground of
under-valuation, even otherwise, could not have succeeded, for no prejudice was
caused to defendants in so far as decision of appeal by First Appellate Court
on merits was concerned. P L D 1996 S. C 292
Valuation of suit-Pecuniary
jurisdiction-Defendants, held, were duty bound to press his case in respect of
want of pecuniary jurisdiction of Court at first instance before trial and then
before Appellate Court-When no objection was taken by defendants as to
pecuniary jurisdiction of Trial Court and. they allowed suit to be proceeded
with, they, held, could not raise question of pecuniary jurisdiction for first
time in execution proceedings under S. 47, C.P.C. Where -No
objection was raised by petitioner as to want of pecuniary jurisdiction arising
from allegation in plaint and by his own conduct and silence he treated market
value to be the amount sufficient to give jurisdiction to Court-Petitioner
dispensed with proof on question by his tacit admission-Provision of S. 58 of
Evidence Act would come into operation and prevented result of statement of
market value in plaint. 1992 M L D 1309 PLD 1971 SC 124; PLD
1902 SC 199; PLD 1987 Lah. 268 and AIR 1918 PC 188 ref.
Suit for pre-emption in
respect of agricultural land-Forum of appeal-Suit valued for purpose of
jurisdiction at Rs. 200 and in decree-sheet value shown as Rs. 25,000-Trial
Court passing decree in favour of appellant for possession through preemption
directing that he would be liable to deposit a total sum of Rs. 95,999
comprising Rs. 25,000 as sale price and Rs. 70,999 as value of improvements
made on land - Appellant depositing Rs. 25,000 towards sale price but
challenging decision of Court as regards payment of amount towards
improvements-Decree having been passed in suit of which jurisdictional value
was determined and fixed, forum of appeal would not be altered merely because
the aggrieved plain tiff/pre-emptor sought to challenge decision of original
Court in respect of claim regarding improvements made in subject-matter of sale
- Rule laid down in Illahi Bakhsh's case P L D 1985 S C 393, held, governed the
case and, therefore, High Court rightly declined to entertain appeal on basis
that the value of the suit in which decree was passed was such that the appeal
lay to District Judge-. P L D 1987 S.C.284 P L D 1985 S C
393 rel.
Forum of appeal determined by
valuation entered in plaint—Trial Court not giving any finding about
correct jurisdictional value for purpose of suit-Forum of appeal would be one
on basis of valuation as stated in plaint in circumstance. P L D 1987 Lah.
512 P L D 1966 SC 461; PLD 1976 Lah. 1; PLD 1985 SC 393 and 1987 S C
M R 1139 ref.
Objection in appeal-In
appeal objection to pecuniary incompetence, held, could be taken only where
such objection was raised in Trial Court itself or where as a result thereof,
some prejudice was caused to party concerned. 1986 M L D 1182
Suit decided by
Court beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction Neither party raising such objection
as raised by petitioner in execution proceedings-Trial and decision of suit by
trial court not causing any prejudice to interest of parties each party content
with decree passed by trial Court and none took matter up in appeal Applying
principle of S. 11 no interference, held, called for in circumstances. 1982 C
L C 2157
Suit for accounts-Plaintiff
deliberately undervaluing his suit and filing suit for accounts when his only
cause of action one for recovery of specified sum known to him -Provision of S.
11, held, not applicable in circumstances. P L D 1972 Kar. 8
Partition
suit by plaintiff, in joint possession-Value for jurisdiction-Plaintiff
fixing at value of entire estate, High Court, holding that such value is value
of plaintiff's share, returning Memorandum of appeal to be presented to
District Court-Held (per Cornelius, C. J.) Supreme Court could make a direction
under S. 11 even though no ground of appeal was taken in terms of that section.
P L D 1961 S. C 349
High Court while setting aside
judgment and decree of District Judge' struck off issues framed by that Court
and the Trial Court and remanded case to Trial Court for deciding afresh - Such
course adopted by High Court was not warranted - Order of High Court was set
aside by Supreme Court and that of First Appellate Court whereby it had
remanded case to Trial Court, was restored in circumstances. P L D 1996 S. C
292
Jurisdictional valuation of
suit- Objection not raised before Trial Court-Effect-Where objection
regarding wrong valuation of suit for purposes of jurisdiction was not raised
at earliest opportunity in Trial Court, same could not be permitted to be
raised subsequently especially so, when no prejudice was shown to have been
caused to defendant. 1992 M L D 1309
PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 1; AIR
1934 Pat. 102; (Paluri) AIR 1935 Mad. 346 ref. AIR 1937 Cal. 430;; PLD
1967 Lah. 75 and AIR 1945 SC 340 rel.
Objection as to
jurisdiction not taken in Court of first instance, nor in memorandum of appeal
before the Additional District Judge-Objection should not be allowed to be
raised at the hearing. In a suit for pre-emption before a Civil Judge, III
Class, the plaintiff claimed pre-emption on payment of Rs.10,000 but the
defendant claimed Rs.16,942-8-0 as the price of the sale transaction. The
amount of Rs.10,000 itself, however, exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court. No objection as to jurisdiction was raised by the defendant. A decree
for possession by pre-emption was passed on payment of Rs.10,000 the defendant
appealed but again ignored the plea of jurisdiction in his memorandum of
appeal. The Additional District judge, however, on the point of jurisdiction,
ordered the plaint to be returned in order to be presented to the proper
Court. On the plaintiffs second appeal Held, that under section 11, Suits
Valuation Act (VII of 1887), the Additional District Judge ought not to have
given effect to the objection raised before him at the time of heating.
The order returning the plaint awas set aside and case remanded for disposal
according to law.
P L D 1956 (W. P.) Lahore 214
A I R 1929 Lah. 509 (2) rel
12. Proceedings pending at commencement of
Part I or Part II
Nothing in
Part I or Part II shall be construed to affect the jurisdiction of any Court-
(a)
with respect to any suits instituted before rules under Part I applicable to the
valuation of the suit take effect, or Part II has come into force, as the case
may be, or
(b)
with respect to any appeal arising out of any such suit.
Go to Index | LL. B. – I | LL. B. – II | LL. B. – III | LL. B. Directory | Home