Suit Valuation Act,1887
Q. Discuss the procedure for raising an objection against valuation of a suit or appeal to the court of appeal.
Objection Against Valuation of Suit or Appeal
1. When Can Objection Be Raised?
An objection to valuation can be raised when:
i. The plaintiff has undervalued or overvalued the suit for court-fee or jurisdiction.
ii. The trial court has wrongly determined jurisdictional value.
iii. The appeal is field with improper valuation affecting pecuniary jurisdiction of appellate court.
2. Relevant Legal Provisions
1. Section 11, suit valuation Act, 1887
i. In appeal or revision, an objection can be entertained only if:
a) It was raised in the trial court at the earliest possible opportunity, and
b) It has affected the decision on merits.
2. Section 12, Court Fees Act, 1870
i. The question of court-fee is not be decided by the trial court.
ii. Its decision is subject to revision/appeal, but appellate courts normally interfere only if jurisdiction is affected.
3. CPC (Order VII Rule 11)
A plaint can be rejected if the relief claimed is undervalued and plaintiff fails to correct valuation.
4. Procedure in Trial Court
Step 1: Defendant raises objection in written statement or at first hearing.
Step 2: Court examines whether valuation is proper.
Step 3: If undervalued, court directs plaintiff to amend valuation and pay additional court-fee.
Step 4: If plaintiff fails, plaint can be rejected (Order VII Rule 11 CPC).
5. Procedure in Appellate Court
Step 1: Appellant/respondent may raise objection in memorandum of appeal or during hearing.
Step 2: Court of appeal examines if valuation defect existed in trial court.
Step 3: As per Section 11, Suit Valuation Act:
i. If objection was not raised in trial court → appeal court will not consider it.
ii. If it was raised but did not affect merits → appeal court will also not interfere.
iii. Only if (i) objection was raised at trial stage, and (ii) wrong valuation affected jurisdiction/merits, the appellate court may set aside decree and order retrial in proper court.
6. Judicial Principles
i. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340)
Jurisdictional defect (like undervaluation taking suit to wrong court) is fundamental,; decree passed without jurisdiction is void.
However, technical errors of valuation not affecting jurisdiction or merits will not upset decrees.
Conclusion
The procedure for raising objection is strict. It must be raised at the earliest stage in trial court, and only if it affects the jurisdiction or merits will an appellate court consider it. Otherwise, objections to valuation are deemed waived. The law aims to prevent litigants from keeping valuation disputes as a surprise tactic in appeal and to ensure focus on merits of the case.
Q. Write a detailed note on Section 8 & 9 of the Suit Valuation Act. 1887
Section 8 provides that:
Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same
In all suits other than those referred to in Section 7, paragraphs v, vi, ix, and x of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fee and the value for jurisdiction shall be the same.
Meaning:
i. Normally, court-fee value (to calculate government revenue) and jurisdictional value (to determine which court can hear the case) may differ.
ii. But Section 8nmakes them identical in most cases.
iii. Only in exceptional suits (declaration, injunction, partition, accounts) covered under Section 7 (IV) of Court Fee Act, 1870, they may differ.
Example
1. Money Recovery Suit
i. A sues B for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-
ii. Court-fee is paid on Rs. 1,00,000/-
iii. Jurisdiction also depends on Rs. 1,00,000/- case must go to a court with pecuniary jurisdiction above that limit.
2. Moveable Property Suit
i. A sues for return of goods worth Rs. 20,000/-
ii. Court -fee is paid on Rs. 20,000/- and jurisdiction also fixed at Rs. 20,000/-
Thus, Section 8 ensures uniformity, prevents undervaluation/overvaluation, and avoids forum shopping.
Section 8 provides:
Determination of value of Land for Jurisdictional Purposes
Section 9
Empowers the High Court, with approval of the State Government, to make rules for the valuation of land in suits where:
i. Relief claimed relates to land, house, or garden, and
ii. Court-fee is not based on market value but on land revenue or other fixed formula under the Court Fee Act.
Meaning:
i. For court-fee purposes, certain land suits are valued on the basis of land revenue or annual rent, not on actual market value.
ii. Section9 ensures that jurisdictional value is also fixed through rules (not left to plaintiff's discretion).
iii. This avoids artificial undervaluation in high-value property disputes.
Example
i. A sues for possession of agricultural land worth Rs. 50 lakh, but under the Court Fee Act he pays court-fee based on land revenue of Rs. 1,000/- per year.
ii. Without Section 9, jurisdiction would wrongly be determined at Rs. 1,000/-
iii. Under Section 9, High Court rules prescribe how jurisdictional value is to be determined (e.g., 30 times the land revenue or approximate market value).
iv. This ensure the case goes before the proper court (higher pecuniary jurisdiction).
Critical Importance of Sections 8 & 9
Section 8
Creates a general rules:
Court-fee value = jurisdictional value.
Section 9
Provides an exception mechanism in land-related suits, giving power to High Courts to frame rules for fair valuation.
Together, they balance government revenue, litigant rights, and distribution of cases across courts.
Conclusion
Sections 8 and 9 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 work hand, Section 8 ensures uniformity in most suits by equating court-fee and jurisdictional value. Section 9 acts as a corrective mechanism for land-related suits, empowering High Courts to prescribe special rules so that jurisdiction reflects the true worth of the property, not the artificially low revenue assessment.