Manohar Lal vs Ram Avtar and Others

J.V. Gupta, ACJ

This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated October 8, 1988, whereby a preliminary issue with regard to the Court-fee was decided against the plaintiff and he was directed to make up the deficiency in Court-fee on or before October 30,1988.

At the time of the motion hearing further proceedings were stayed by this Court.

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia on the allegations that the disputed property was under the ownership of the plaintiff and various persons were tenants thereon. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in collusion with each other managed the forged power of attorney on October 10, 1984, on behalf of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1 and the same was got registered whereas, in fact, the plaintiff never executed such a power of attorney and never gave such an authority to defendant No. 1 and as such the said power of attorney was a forged one. On the basis of the alleged power of attorney, defendant No. 1, expected the sale deed on October 28,1984, in favour of defendant No.2 and also executed a sale deed dated January 8,1985 and a third sale deed dated May 17,1986, in favour of defendant No.3 and as such all the three sale deeds were bogus, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. According to the sale deeds, the said property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,24,000/-. The defendants in their written statement raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not valued properly for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court after framing the preliminary issue and hearing the learned counsel for the parties found that the plaintiff being a party to the sale deeds was required to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the transaction challenged. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Nirdnjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 Rev.L.R.428.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the view taken by the trial Court in this behalf was wholly wrong. For the purposes of Court-fee only the plaint is to be seen and since the relief claimed in the plaint is for declaration and injunction, the question of paying ad valorem Court-fee on the sale consideration did not arise. Reference was made in this behalf to Tara Singh v. Tarsem Singh, 1987 P.L.J. 172.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur''s case (supra) that where the suit is for cancellation of documents where the plaintiff is a party thereto, the Court-fee payable was under article I Schedule I and section 7(iv) (c) of the Court fees Act had no applicability. The present case is fully covered by the ratio of the said judgment. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Tara Singh''s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In that case, the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deeds and he wanted to avoid the sale deeds as not to affect his rights being void and ineffective and without legal necessity.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Since at the time of motion hearing further proceedings were stayed by this, Court the plaintiff is allowed three months'' time from today to make up the deficiency in the Court-fee, as directed by the trial Court by the impugned order. In case the deficiency is made good within the time allowed, the suit will proceed in accordance with law.