Desai, C.J. - (1.) This is a report by the Chief Inspector of Stamps for realising from the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the trial Court, additional Court-fee payable on the plaint. We are not concerned with the other prayer contained in the report that the Additional Court-fee be realised from the appellant as payable on the memoranda of appeal in this Court because it will be dealt with by the Taxing Judge. The only question before us is whether any additional Court-fee should be realised from the appellint on the ground that the Court-fee paid by him on the plaint was insufficient.
(2.) The suit brought by the appellant was for a declaration that a sale deed executed by one of the defendants for Rs. 1,500/- and a Waqf deed executed, by her in respect of property valued at Rs. 40,000/-, were not binding upon him on her death because she was a Hindu widow and the alienations made by her were without legal necessity and not for the benefit of the estate and he was the nearest reversioner. He paid ad valorem Court-fee on the plaint under Section 7 (iv-A) (2) on Rs. 8,300/-, the amount being one-fifth of the aggregate amounts of the sale deed and the Waqf deed. The suit was contested by the defendants, who included the vendee and the donee in whose favour the Waqf deed was executed and one of the pleas, on which they contested the suit was that the lady was not a limited owner but an absolute owner having inherited the property from her husband under a will and not under Hindu Law. The appellant had said nothing whatsoever about the alleged will in his plaint; not only did he not seek any relief from it but also he did not even refer to it and completely ignored it as if it had never been executed. After the written statement was filed by the defendants he denied the genuineness of the will alleging that it was a forgery; he did not take any other plea in respect of it. The trial Court, holding that the lady had inherited the property under the Will and not as an heir dismissed the appellant's suit and hence the appeal filed by him in this Court.
(3.) The Chief Inspector has not questioned the Court-fee paid by the appellant in respect of the relief sought against the sale deed and the Waqf deed, but has contended that be should have paid additional Court-fee on the implied relief from the will. The will that was set up by the defendants was in respect of the entire property left by the previous owner. The property involved in the sale deed and the Waqf deed was only part of it The Chief Inspector contended that the appellant should have paid additional Court-fee for being relieved from the will in respect of the property valued at Rs. 41,500/- the aggregate of the values of the property involved in the two deeds. His reason was that the appellant in effect wanted cancellation of the will or its being adjudged to be void or voidable in addition to the relief of adjudging the two deeds as void or voidable. After having heard Sri Salish Chandra and Sri Shambhu Prasad we have no hesitation in saying that the appellant was not required to pay any additional Court-fee on this ground.;