CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS Vs. VISHNU PRATAP SUGAR WORKS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-12
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 02,1965

CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS Appellant
VERSUS
VISHNU PRATAP SUGAR WORKS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOHD. HABIBUR RAHMAN KHAN V. ABDUL QADIR FARUQI [REFERRED TO]
THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS V. DEPUTY COMMR. INCHARGE COURT OF WARDS SHAHPUR ESTATE,GONDA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN CHOWDHURY K C DULIA ON BEHALT OF RAJ KUMAR VOHRA DETENU VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA:CHIEF COMMISSIONER UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS VS. GOPALJI MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS VS. JASH PAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UDAI PRATAP GIR VS. SHANTA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN LAL VS. A S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL JAHANGIRABAD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.)THIS order shall govern Civil Revisions Nos. 1005 and 1097 of 1964, both by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, against the order of the Civil Judge of Deoria passed in two suits instituted by the opposite parties, Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works, Pvt. Ltd., Khadda, and Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills. Pvt. Ltd., Lachhmigunj.
(2.)THE reliefs sought for in the suit instituted by Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works were that the State of Uttar Pradesh, its servants and agents be restrained by a permanent injunction from realising or taking any steps for the realization of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 33,74,754.77 from the plaintiff company as arrears of land revenue or otherwise and, in the alternative the State of Uttar Pradesh be restrained by permanent injunction from realising from the plaintiff company any amount in excess of Rs. 18,000,00 by way of arrears of cane cess and purchase tax for the years 1952 to 1962. THE third prayer made, in case none of the above reliefs could be granted was that the Union of India be ordered by injunction to pay the dues of Rs. 33,74,754.77 to the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the suit instituted by Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills the second prayer was not made. THE only reliefs sought for were that the State of Uttar Pradesh, its servants and agents be restrained by an order of the Court from realising or taking any steps for the realization of any amount on account of cane cess and purchase tax from the plaintiff and, in the alternative, the Union of India be ordered to pay the amount of Rs. 6,94,327.24 to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The plaintiffs of the two suits paid court-fee as reliefs for injunction. The Chief Inspector of Stamps raised an objection to the sufficiency of the court-fee and when the objections were repelled, the present revisions under Section 6-B of the Court Fees Act were moved.

The points which have been urged before me are that the reliefs for injunction amounted to a declaration with a consequential relief and, consequently, court fee was payable under Sub-section (iv) (a) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. It was further contended that the Act of Parliament, and also of the State Legislature amounted to an instrument and as adjudging void thereof was involved and the Acts secured money or property having such value, additional court fee under Sub-section (iv-A) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act was payable.

(3.)THE first contention has no force. THE Court Fees Act by itself makes a provision for a suit for injunction alone. Injunction is invariably not granted unless the plaintiff has a right or title and, in suitable cases, is in possession of the property. To put it differently, no injunction can be granted unless Courts of law adjudicate upon the right or title of the parties. Such adjudication amounts to declaration. Consequently, wherever a relief for injunction is granted, the Courts shall, by implication, grant a declaration and if the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel is accepted, the provisions of Sub-section (iv-B) (b) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act shall become superfluous.
Generally speaking, therefore, wherever in injunction is sought for court fee is payable under Clause (b) of Sub-section (iv-B) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. It is in very special circumstances that a relief for injunction may be deemed to amount to a declaration with a consequential relief.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.