Babu Ram vs Yogesh Kumar

G.C. Mital, J.—Babu Ram Petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale-deed dated 4th of October, 1976, is null and void, based on fraud, undue influence and coercion and prayed for setting it aside with the additional relief of permanent injunction restraining Yogesh Kumar Dafendant from interfering with his peaceful possession of the land in suit. On the relief of declaration, he paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 25/-. In defence, the Dafendant raised an objection that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, that the court-fee paid was insufficient, that the Plaintiff was a party to the sale-deed and since cancellation of the same was necessary ad valorem court-fee on the sale consideration, which was Rs. 11,000/- was necessary to be paid. The trial Court framed the following issue:

(1) Whether the suit is correctly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?

By order dated 19th September, 1968, the trial Court held that the court fee of Rs. 25/- affixed by the Plaintiff is insufficient and he was liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of the sale-deed, that is, on Rs. 11,000/- as the case was covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The Plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court against the said order.

Mr. V.K. Jain appearing for the Petitioner, has urged that the relief of declaration is covered by Article 12 of Schedule 11 of the Court Fees Act, as held in Umarannessa Nnessa Bibi Vs. Jamirannessa Bibi and Another, and Gita Debi Bajoria Vs. Harish Chandra Saw Mill and Others, . The aforesaid decisions clearly support the contention of the counsel. The relief of permanent injunction is not a consequential relief as it does not flow from the declaration sought for. Since the Plaintiff is in possession of the property in spite of the sale-deed, it was enough for him to sue for declaration but the view of our High Court has always been that the relief of declaration in such cases necessairly includes a consequential relief of declaration of the document and as such Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, as amended by the State amendments, is applicable. Since the Petitioner is succeeding before me on the other point, I do not deem it necessary to decide the point covered by the Calcutta decisions in this case.

The other argument of the learned Counsel is that even if Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, as amended by the State Legislature, is held to be applicable to this case, then in view of Section 7(v)(b) thereof, since the land in dispute is agricultural land, subject to land revenue, court-fee is payable at ten times the land revenue which would come to much below the court-fee already paid and as such the trial Court was in error in demanding court-fee on the amount of Rs. 11,000/-. I find merit in this contention of the learned Counsel in view of the decisions of this Court in Mohan Singh v. Sm. Balbir Kaur etc. 1978 CLJ 477, Naresh Kumar v. Hakam Singh and Ors. 1979 PLR 137 and Labh Singh and Ors. v. Puran Singh 1972 PLR 29, which show that even if, Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act is applicable to this case, according to the second proviso added by the State amendment, it has to be calculated in the manner given in Clause (v). A reading of Clause (v) of Section 7 shows that court-fee with regard to agricultural land subject to land revenue is payable at ten times the land revenue, by virtue of sub Clause (b) of this clause and is not payable on the market value of the land. Hence the Court below was clearly in error in demanding court-fee on the sum of Rs. 11,000/- instead of demanding court-fee at ten times the land revenue payable on the land in dispute.

On the other hand, Shri R.L. Luthra, counsel for the Respondent, invited my attention to a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Purshottam Dass and Others Vs. Har Narain and Another, , to show as to what is consequential relief. According to this judgment, a consequential relief is one which necessarily flows from the grant of declaration and cancellation or setting aside of the document would certainly be a consequential relief and that is why Section 7(iv)(c) with second proviso would apply to this case. Hence, this argument does not advance this case.

Shri Luthra then argued that court-fee is payable on the value of the property and he relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surat Singh v. Jagdish and Ors. 1979 PLR 82, in support of his contention. This case is clearly distinguishable as a money decree for Rs. 21,500/- was sought to be set aside by a suit for declaration wherein it was held that u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, court-fee is payable on the decretal amount. u/s 7(iv)(c) court-fee is payable ad valorem. To avoid money decrees, court-fee is payable on the amount of the decree to be avoided. If it is a case of avoiding a decree or sale of urban property, court-fee u/s 7(iv)(c) would be payable on the value of a property. If a decree or sale of agricultural land other than agricultural land not subject to land revenue is sought to be avoided, then the court-fee is to be payable on the market value of the agricultural land but if the decree or document sought to be avoided is in regard to agricultural land subject to land revenue, then ad valorem court-fee is payable, not on the value of the property but on the value which is ten times of land revenue. Hence, this case does not help the Dafendant.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this revision with costs, set aside the order of the Court below dated 19th September, 1978 and hold that on the prayer for declaration with consequential relief of cancellation or setting aside the sale-deed dated 4th of October, 1976, ad valorem court-fee is payable at ten times the land revenue payable on the land in dispute. In addition to this, the Plaintiff would be liable to pay fixed court-fee on the relief of injunction which is a separate relief. In case the trial Court finds that the court-fee already paid by the Plaintiff is not sufficient, according to the observations made above, it shall grant time to the Plaintiff to make good the court-fee and then it shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27th of August, 1979.