Suits Valuation Act, 1887

  1. S.3 Valuation of suits — Determination of  — Land exempted from revenue by the Government. The trial Court shall address itself to the point as to how the jurisdiction and value of the suit land is to be made. Muhammad Sharif v.Muhammad Yousaf Shah and 3 others 1998 SCR 153 (B)
  2. Section 3 — Power to make Rules — Provincial Government — Jurisdictional purpose in suits falling under section 7,  paragraphs (V),(vi) and (X),clause(D) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 — Under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, the Provincial Government may make rules for determining the value of land for purpose of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in, paragraphs (V) (vi), and (X), clause (D) of section 7 of  the Court Fee Act, 1870,  and under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887,  the High Court is empowered to make rules for determining the value of the suits — No rules under section 3 are framed by AJK Government — the rules enforced in Pakistan immediately before the adaptation of the suits valuation Act, 1887,vide AJ&K Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959, are applicable in AJ&K. Rehmatullah  v. Azar Iqbal & others 2014 SCR 1503 (B)
  3. In a pre-emption suit, the proper section applicable is section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act and the rules framed thereunder. M. Sharif v. M. Yousaf Shah and 3 others 1998 SCR 153 (B)
  4. Jurisdictional value has to be determined keeping in view of Suits Valuation Act — The suits covered by section 7(V),(vi)(ix) and (X) clause (D) are excluded from the operation of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act — For determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in a pre-emption suit, proper section applicable will be section 3 of Suits Valuation Act and the Rules made thereunder. Amir-ud-Din v. Muhammad Latif and 9 others 2004 SCR 214 (B
  5. S.11-If no objection regarding wrong valuation of suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is raised in the trial Court — That cannot be raised subsequently — When no prejudice is shown. Muhammad Amin v. Muhammad Shafi 1992 SCR 178 (A)
  6. S. 11— If specific objection regarding the jurisdiction value of the suit is not raised — Cannot be permitted to be raised subsequently. Muhammad Amin v. Muhammad Shafi 1992 SCR 178 (B)
  7. S. 11 — Suit value — Determination of — Objection — If objection regarding valuation of a suit or appeal is not raised in the trial Court or in the appellate Court — Same cannot be raised afterwards. M. HUSSAIN vs. MUHAMMAD  AFSAR and 5 others 2002 SCR 420 (A,B)
  8. Suit for specific performance — It is well settled principle of law that in case of specific performance of contract the jurisdictional value is to be fixed  with reference to the price of the land — Findings of the Courts below that the plaint was under-valued are correct and call for no interference. Muhammad Sarwar v. Rehmatullah and 4 others 1996 SCR 296 (A)
  9.  In case the land revenue is assessed but for some reason it is not recovered for being exempted, the jurisdictional value shall be determined in accordance with the assessment of land revenue. Amir-ud-Din v. Muhammad Latif and 9 others 2004 SCR 214 (C) PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 265 rel. 
  10. Enforcement in AJK — brief history — AJK Courts and Laws Code, 1949 — section 58 — AJK Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959 — In Azad Jammu and Kashmir, under the provision of section 58 of AJK Courts and Laws Code, 1949, the Courts Fees and Suit Valuations Acts are made applicable to all suits appeals and applications — subsequently, through AJK Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959  the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, of Pakistan along with all notifications, rules and orders made thereunder was adapted. Rehmatullah & 4 others v.  Azar Iqbal & 7 others 2014 SCR 1503 (A)
  11. Pre-emption suit — determination of value — section 7, paragraph (vi) — Court Fees Act,1870 paragraph (V) — Schedule-D of Punjab Suits Valuation Rules — Pre-emption suit determination of value — In pre-emption suit, if the subject matter is land  it forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the collector’s register as separately assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently; sixty times of the revenue so payable — If not permanently settled then thirty times of the revenue so payable. But where the land pays no such revenue or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue; and net profits have arisen from the land during the next year before the date of presenting the plaint, 15 times of such profit — where no such net profits have arisen therefrom or where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate, and is not separately assessed as above mentioned , the market value of the land. Rehmatullah & 4 others v. Azar Iqbal & 7 others 2014 SCR 1503 (C & D)
  12. For computing the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, where the subject matter is land, there are apparently three modes; firstly, on the basis of assessed revenue if conditions are fulfilled as mentioned in the statutory provisions; secondly, in case the value could not be computed on the basis of revenue, then on the basis of net profits; and thirdly, if that is also not applicable and the land is not definite share of an estate or separately assessed revenue, then the market value of the profits. Rehmatullah & 4 others v.  Azar Iqbal & 7 others 2014 SCR 1503 (E)
  13. Duty of the trial court — Determination — according to settled principle of law, it is the duty of the trial court to address itself to the point as to how the jurisdictional value of the suit land has to be made. Rehmatullah & others v. Azar Iqbal & others 2014 SCR 1503 (F) 1998 SCR 153 rel.
error: Content is protected !!