Smt. Vijoti Devi vs Gulab Singh

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This revision petition is directed against an order of the trial Court directing the filing of an amended plaint setting out the correct valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that she was the owner in possession of a parcel of land and for an injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with her possession. According to the plaint, possession of the land was given to the Plaintiff by one Nangu in the year 1966 and subsequently when Nangu acquired proprietary rights in the land it was sold by him to the Plaintiff in 1968. The Plaintiff says that the Defendant is disputing his title to the land and is also threatening to remove the fruit of the orchard standing on the land.

The learned Subordinate Judge has held that for the purposes of Section 7(iv) of the Himachal Pradesh Court-Fees Act, the value of the orchard along with that of the land will have to be taken into consideration for determining the court-fee payable. He has computed the total value at Rs. 78,760/-. He has mentioned that this includes the sum of Rs. 1,035/-. representing the market value of a small house standing on the land.

The Plaintiff applies in revision.

Section 7(iv)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Court-Fees Act provides for the manner in which the court-fee has to be computed in a suit for a declaratory decree and consequential relief. The trial court has found that the orchard should also be valued along with the land. It is urged for the Petitioner that inasmuch as the land alone is the subject of relief in the plaint the orchard should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation. It appears, however, that according to the plaint the Defendants threats are directed not only against the land but also against the orchard. The declaration has been sought by the Plaintiff on the allegation that the Defendant is threatening to forcibly dispossess her from the land in dispute and to take possession of the land as well as the fruit of the orchard. Although the Plaintiff has specifically prayed for a declaratory relief and perpetual injunction in respect of the land alone, in substance the relief is desired in respect of both the land and the orchard. In every case, it is for the court to determine on a proper understanding of the entire plaint what is the essential substance of the relief claimed by the Plaintiff. In the present case, it appears that relief is sought for protecting the interest of the Plaintiff in the land as well as in the orchard.

In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court.

The revision petition is dismissed but in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.