Dismissed

Alok and 5 Others v. Dheeraj and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018A227/8733/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, this court examined whether a plaintiff must pay ad-volarem court fee when the suit property is a temple. Finding temples inalienable and devoid of market value, the court held the plaintiff was not required to pay such fee and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The challenge to the trial court's order dismissing the plea for ad-volarem court fee was dismissed.

Alok and 5 Others Vs Dheeraj and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8733 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Alok And 5 Others Respondent :- Dheeraj And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Meerut in Original Suit No.212 of 2016 (Dheeraj v. Alok) whereby issue no.3 regarding suit valuation and court fee has been decided in favour of the plaintiff.

¶7

The grounds for challenge of the said order as taken in the present petition that under Section 7(iv) (f) of the Court Fee Act,1870 as amended in the State of U.P., in case, the relief is other than the pure relief of rendition of account, the plaintiff would be required to pay ad-volarem court fee i.e. the court fee at the market value of the suit property.

¶8

In support of this submission, reference is made to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ragho Prasad & Ors. v. B. Pratap Narain Agrawal & Ors. reported in 1976 (2) ALR 505 and Syed Dewan Khaja Moideen Saheb v. D.M. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib reported in AIR (29) 1942 MAD 247 .

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Commercial Aviation & Travel Company Inc v. Vimla Pannalal reported in (1988) 3 SCC 423 to submit that in a case where it is not possible for the Court to get the valuation of the suit property, by applying certain positive objective standards; as may be available for the purpose of determination of the valuation, it is not open for it to ask the plaintiff to pay ad-volarem court fee. Reference has also been made to the judgment of Madras High Court in Manikkam Pillai v. Nmnagasami Ayyar reported in 1934 AIR (Mad) 714 to submit that as the suit property is a temple and the temple having no market value as it is inalienable, the Court cannot apply any objective standards to get the valuation of the property. The present suit has been filed with the relief of the management of the temple as also for rendition of account. The law laid down by the Madras High Court Syed Dewan (supra) (relied upon by the petitioner), therefore, has no application.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record and in view of the admitted fact that the suit property is a temple, this Court is of the view that it is not possible for the Court to get the market value of the temple. The market value as inferred in the legal parlance and generally is that the valuation of the property is the value, which an unintended buyer would give to an intended seller. The temple being

¶11

inalienable, cannot be said to have any market value so as to apply any objective standards to determine its valuation to ask the plaintiff to pay ad volarem court fee.

¶12

No infirmity, therefore, is found in the conclusion drawn by the trial court in deciding issue no.3.

¶13

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 Jyotsana

Alok and 5 Others v. Dheeraj and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok and 5 Others v. Dheeraj and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Mohan and Another Vs Manoj

Mukesh Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Upadhyaya

Mohd. Hashrat Vs Sangam Shakahari Bhojnalaya, through Its Proprietor Smt. Munni Devi

Surendra Singh Vs Shakha Prabandhak Canera Bank, Branch Ramaganj and 3 Others

Smt. Bhagirathi Devi Vs Smt.Anju Pandey and Another

Guduna Devi and 4 Others Vs Additional District Judge and 4 Others