MT RUPIA Vs. BHATU MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to this Bench is what is the proper court-fee payable on the plaint and on the memoranda of appeal in the lower appellate Court and in this Court. The suit was instituted by Mt. Rupia, widow of Sanichar Mahto, on the following allegations: She has been in possession of the properties in question, holding a widow's estate after her husband's death. Loka Mahto is the next reversioner to her husband, and defendants 7 to 10 were not the reversioners as falsely alleged in the documents hereinafter mentioned. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was that defendants 1, 3 and 5 brought her to Patna on false pretexts and fraudulently got her to affix her thumb mark to two documents and to admit execution of the same without letting her know the contents thereof and that the recitals in the documents (copies of which were obtained subsequently) as regards the passing of consideration and the existence of certain necessities and as to the relationship between her husband and defendants 7 to 10 were wholly false. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint, set out below, disclose the facts on which the plaintiff claimed the principal relief: 7. That it is clear from the facts mentioned above, that the defendants first party having practised fraud and forcibly taking advantage of the helpless condition of the plaintiff got executed the deeds dated 5 February, 1940, one in the names of Bhatu Mahto son of Aklu Mahto and Parmesar Mahto son of Modi Mahto by mentioning a false and imaginary consideration of Rs. 3000 in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule 2, and the other in the name of Mahadoo Mahto son of Somar Mahto by mentioning a false arid imaginary consideration of Rs. 1500 in respect of Schedule 3. Although the said sale deeds have not become operative nor have the defendants first party acquired possession and occupation by virtue of the same, yet without getting a declaration to that effect, the plaintiff's right may be prejudiced in future and as by means thereof an evidence has been created in favour of the title of the defendants first party of which there is no existence, the plaintiff cannot get her grievances redressed without recourse to Court. 8. The value of this suit for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Court is fixed at Rs. 1500 and Rs. 3000 in all at lis. 4500 which are mentioned in the sale deeds, but as the plaintiff continues in possession and occupation as before she begs to institute this suit for declaration of her title and Rs. 15 is paid as court-fee for the same. The principal relief is as follows: (1) On adjudication of the facts referred to above it may be declared by the Court that both the sale deeds, one dated 5 February 1940 for Rs. 1500 in favour of Mahadeo Mahto and the other dated 5 February 1940 for Rs. 3000 in favour of Bhatu Mahto and Parmesar Mahto are got up and fraudulent, that they were got executed by the plaintiff by practising fraud on her and without letting her know the contents thereof, that the defendants have acquired no title by virtue of the same and that the defendants second party had no right to join in the said deeds.

(2.) To the plaint, a court-fee of Rs. 15 for a declaration only was affixed. This was held to be sufficient by the trial Court which, decreed the suit, allowing the declaration, asked for, and ordering a copy of its decree to be sent to the Registration Office so that a note of cancellation would be made in the registers of the Registration Office. This was apparently done under the provisions of Section 39, Specific Relief Act. On appeal by the defendants first party, the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and held that the sale deeds in question were genuine, valid and for consideration. There upon the plaintiff filed her memorandum of second appeal to this Court, paying a court-fee of Rs. 15 only on the basis that the suit was merely for a declaration. The Stamp Reporter was of the opinion that the plaint as well as the memoranda of appeal both in the lower appellate Court and in this Court are governed by the provisions of Section 7(iv) (c), Court-fees Act, and that, consequently, ad valorem court-fees should be levied. He relied, principally, upon the decision in this Court of the taxing Judge reported in Mt. Noowooagar Ojain V/s. Shidhar Jha A.I.R. 1918 Pat. 482. He also noticed that there was some conflict of judicial opinion in this Court and made reference to the cases in Khiri Chand Mahton V/s. Mt. Meghni A.I.R. 1926 Pat. 453, Kamala Prasad V/s. Jagarnath Prasad A.I.R. 1931 Pat. 78 and Ramautar Sao V/s. Ram Gobind Sao A.I.R. 1942 Pat. 60. This Bench has been constituted to determine which provision of the Court-fees Act governs the present case so as to lay down a uniform rule in the matter of court-fees in a case like the present which is of frequent occurrence.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the appellant, and the Assistant Government Advocate on, behalf of the Revenue, it appears that there are three possible views of the provisions of the Court-fees Act which may be applicable to the facts of the present case: namely, (1) which is contended for on behalf of the appellant, that this case comes within the purview of Art. 17(iii) of schedule 2, Court-fees Act; (2) that it comes under the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act; and (3) that it is governed by Art. 1, Schedule 1 of the Act. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has contended that the case comes either under category 2 or 3 aforesaid. The relevant provisions of the Court-fees Act aforesaid are as follows: (1) Section 7(iv)(c): to obtain a declaratory decree, or order, where consequential relief is prayed,: according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, or memorandum of appeal; in all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. (2) Art. 1, Schedule 1--"Plaint, written statement, pleading a set off or counter-claim or memorandum of appeal (not otherwise provided for in this Act;...."); court-fee has to be paid ad valorem on the amount, or value, of the subject-matter in dispute according to a sliding scale. (3) Art. 17(iii), Schedule 2--"to obtain a declaratory decree or order where no consequential relief is prayed;" a fixed fee of Rs. 15 is payable on a plaint or a memorandum of appeal.