Valuation of Suit and Adequacy of Court Fees are Mixed Questions of Law and Fact.

The applicants (defendants in the original suit) challenged an order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambagarh Chowki

The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition, and possession, valuing the total relief at Rs. 7,000/- and paying a court fee of Rs. 700/-

The applicants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the suit was undervalued and that the market value of the suit property (house and Badi) exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, necessitating higher court fees under Section 7(vi-a) of the Court-fees Act, 1870

The trial court rejected this application, holding that valuation is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided during the trial

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC regarding the alleged improper valuation and insufficiency of court fees

2. Whether the valuation of a suit and the adequacy of court fees can be treated as a mixed question of law and fact to be decided on merits

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to the rejection of a plaint

Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 69, which mandates that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and has the right to value the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction unless the valuation is found to be demonstrably arbitrary, unreasonable, or illusory

Section 7(vi-a) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, regarding the valuation of suits for partition

The Court observed that the plaintiffs provided specific valuations for declaration (Rs. 3,000), partition (Rs. 2,000), and possession (Rs. 2,000)

applicants’ claim that the property exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs was found to be "vague," as they failed to provide particulars regarding dimensions, structure, or floors to substantiate such a valuation

Applying the Tara Devi principle, the Court noted that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs' valuation was "arbitrary or unreasonable"

the Court reasoned that since the adequacy of court fees depends on factual evidence regarding property details that were not yet established, the trial court correctly classified the matter as a mixed question of law and fact requiring a full trial

The court affirmed that the issue of suit valuation and court fees would be decided after examining the evidence adduced by both parties during the merits of the case

No order as to costs was made