MAHESH GROVER,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2007. The respondent had filed suit for declaration and joint possession in which he challenged various sale deeds dated 24.9.1986, 25.6.93 and 2.3.94 and a decree dated 1.2.95. The petitioner who was the defendant in the suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that proper court fee has not been affixed as the value of the property was more than Rs. 50 lacs and prayed that since ad valorem Court fee has not been paid keeping in view the prayer in the suit, the plaint be rejected. The respondent who was the plaintiff in the suit contended that the challenge to the sale deed may he treated to the extent of 1/7th of the share as he has not confined himself to any specific khasra Nos. and was merely a co-sharer by virtue of sale of 1/7th share in his favour.
(2.) THE trial Court accepted this plea and rejected the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court titled as Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 PLR 127 wherein this Court held as follows :- "Held that its is well settled that the court in deciding the question of Court fee should look into the allegation made in the plaint to find out what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. Thus, in each case, the Court has to find out the real relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Where the main relief of that the cancellation of the deed, and the declaration if any, is only a surplusage, the case would not be covered under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Act. Because in a suit under that Clause, the main relief is that on a declaration and the consequential relief is just ancilliary. Held further, that in case the main relief in the suit is held to be that of cancellation of the sale deed, then the case is not covered by Section 7(iv)(c) and the only provision applicable is Article 1 Schedule I of the Act. In order to bring the case under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, the main and substantive relief should be that of a declaration and the consequential relief should be ancilliary thereto. Moreover, if no consequential relief is claimed or could be claimed in the suit, then, Section 7(iv)(c) will not be affected. To say in the plaint, that it be declared that the sale deed, got executed from her as a result of the fraud was void and not binding on her, does not convert the suit into one for a declaration with the consequential relief of possession so as to fall within the provisions of Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Act. To such a suit, the only Article applicable is Article 1 Schedule I". On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a case reported as AIR 1958 245, 1918 Privy Council 188 and also a Single Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as 2001 RCR (Civil) 797 to contend that the petition regarding Court fee is primarily between the plaintiff and the State and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;