SURJIT SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's second appeal whose suit has been dismissed on the preliminary ground that his suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of declaration to the effect that he was mentally infirm and was of unsound mind since 1964, and thus incapable of entering into any contract and defending himself in civil litigation and that the decree dated September 28. 1981 for the recovery of Rs. 7,000/- suffered by him in suit no. 18 of January 28, 1981 was ineffective and inoperative against him being a nullity. As a consequentital relief, it was prayed that permanent injunction be granted restraining the defendants from getting the said decree executed against him. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was taken that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was governed by the provisions of clause (iv) of section 7 of the Punjab Court fees Act (hereinafter called the Act), as amended and therefore, the plaintiff was liable to pay the court fee ad valorem ie. on the amount of Rs. 7000/-. In view of this finding the plaint was rejected. In appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial court and thus maintained the order rejecting the plaint. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant contended that since the plaintiff was of an unsound mind at the time of the passing of the decree dated September 28, 1981 against him without any guardian having been appointed for him. It will be deemed that he was not a party to the suit and therefore such a decree being a nullity, it was not ad valorem court fee which was held to be payable on the amount of Rs. 7000/- by both the Courts below. In support of the contention the learned counsel relied upon Abdullah V. Subramanyan,1936 AIR(Mad) 470 and Sinder Singh and others V. Bhora Singh,1978 RajdhaniLR 463and others On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant respondent cited Surat Singh V. Jagdish, 1979 81 PunLR 82. and Shamsher Singh V. Rajinder Parshad, 1973 AIR(SC) 2384