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
SUITS RELATING TO LAND

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
OTHER SUITS

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Repealed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
SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

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)

11th February, 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:-

Court Decisions

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.

Court Decisions

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. 1993 M L D 2105

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. 1995 M L D 737 1994 SCMR 2039 and PLD 1958 SC 104 rel. 1986 CLC 456; PLD 1988 SC 409. 1993 MLD 36 and 1986 CLC 233 ref.

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.

Court Decisions

 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.

Court Decisions

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.

Court Decisions

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. 

Court Decisions

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 

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. 2002 C L C 1382 PLD 1972 Kar. 251; PLD 1959 Kar. 802; S. PLD 1964 Kar. 386 PLD 1971 Kar. 682 ref. 

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