ORDER
R.L. Khurana, J.
1. The plaintiff, Co-operative Forest Societies Union of District Kangra, has filed the present suit claiming the following reliefs :--
(a) rendition of accounts with respect to the income accruing to the defendants from the forest produce of the forests under the management of all Co-operative Forest Societies (Pro forma defendants No. 5 to 40) from the date of nonpayment of share till date; and
(b) recovery of money to the extent of one fourth share in the total income accruing to the defendants from the forest produce of the forests under the management of the Kangra Forests Co-operative Societies from the date of its non-payment till date along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff acting for and on behalf of its member Cooperative Societies, namely pro forma defendants No. 5 to 40. According to the plaintiff as per the scheme under which forests were handed over to various Co-operative Societies for protection and management, such Co-operative Societies were entitled to 1/4th share in the income derived from the forest produce and such share was being paid to the Co-operative Societies by the then State of Punjab. However, since after the reorganisation of States and the concerned forest areas becoming a part of the State of Himachal Pradesh, such share has not been paid to the various Co-operative Societies in spite of repeated demands.
3. The suit is being resisted and contested by defendants No. 1 to 4, who' pleaded that neither the plaintiff nor the pro forma defendants were entitled to any amount as share in the income from the forest produce. Objections as to maintainability of the suit, limitation, suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, valuation of the suit, and the suit not having been filed through a competent and duly authorised person were also raised.
4. On the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed on 12-10-2001 :--
1. Whether the plaintiff and pro forma defendants are entitled to 1/4th share in the sale proceeds of the Forest under their control and as such, are entitled to rendition of accounts?
OPP.
2. whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not within time, as alleged; OPD
4. Whether the suit has not been filed through a competent person, as alleged? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD
6. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, as alleged OPD
7. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction OPP.
8. Whether the existence of Co-operative Society in Himachal Pradesh after 31-3-1973 is illegal and without any sanction? If so, to what effect? OPD
9. Whether the scheme under which the plaintiff is claiming the rights is not enforced after 31-3-1973? If so, to what effect? OPD
10. Whether the rights of the plaintiff and pro forma defendants, if any, stand extinguished consequent upon the land having been vested in the State under the H. P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilisation) Act? OPD
11. Relief.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under :--
Issue No.7.
6. The plaintiff, vide para 23 of the plaint, has valued the present suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as under :--
'That the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 50 lakhs and for the purpose, of court fee is being tentatively fixed at Rs. 2000/-. The plaintiff undertakes to pay the court fee on the amount as may be determined by passing a decree. All the records pertaining to the transactions are in possession of the defendants and the plaintiff has no knowledge as to the amount of their share.'
7. The correctness of the valuation of suit as put forth by the plaintiff has been objected to by the defendants. It is contended that the suit could not have been valued differently for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction vide Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, has to be the same.
8. Section 7(iv) (f), H.P. Court Fees Act,1968, governs the amount of court-fee payable in a suit for accounts. It provides thatcourt fee on a suit for account is payableaccording to the amount at which reliefsought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.
9. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, provides :--
'Where in suits other than those referredto in the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section7,; paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x) Clause (d), Court fees are payable ad valoremunder the Court Fees Act, 1870, the valueas determinable for the computation of courtfees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.'
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 has held that If the scheme laid down for the computation of fees payable in all suits covered by the several sub-sections of Section 7, Court Fees Act, 1870, is considered, it would be clear that in respect of suits falling under Sub-section (iv), a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purpose of court fees. The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the question as to what would be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction, has to be decided by reading Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, along with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. The latter section provides that, where in any suits other than those referred to in Court Fees Act, Section 7 paras 5, 6 and 9 and para 10, Clause (d), court fee are payable ad valorem under the Act, the value determinable for computation of court fees and value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. In other words, so far as suits falling under Section 7(iv), Court Fees Act, are concerned, Section 8, Suits Valuation Act provides that the value determinable for the computation of Court fees and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the same. There can be little doubt that the effect of Section 8. Suits Valuation Act, is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court fees and that is material enough. The computation of court fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv), Court Fees Act, depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for purposes of court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must, no doubt, be the same in such cases, but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this Value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for purposes of court fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit falling under Section 7(iv). Court Fees Act, and not vice versa.
12. Following the above principle this Court in Mohan Meakin Limited, Solan Brewery v. Internations Trade and another, Civil Reference No. 1 of 2002 decided on 23-9-2002, has also held that in a suit for rendition of accounts, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be same and that it is the valuation of suit for the purpose of court fee which shall be the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction.
13. Since the plaintiff in the present case has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee at Rs. 2000/-, the same would be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction, By valuing the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at rupees fifty lakhs and at the same time valuing it at Rs. 2000/- for the purpose of court fee, the suit cannot be said to have been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.
14. If the suit is taken to have been valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 2000/-, then admittedly, this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit. The plaint of the suit is liable to be returned under Order 7, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure for presentation to the proper court. The issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issues No. 1 to 6 and 8 to 10.
15. In view of the findings recorded under Issue No. 7 above that this court has no jurisdiction and the plaint is liable to be returned, the question involved under the present issues are not required to be gone into as having become redundant.
Relief.
16. As a result, the plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for presentation to the proper Court.
17. No orders as to costs.