KALU RAM Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The taxing Judge has referred two questions of law to a Full Bench. The case itself has not been referred to us. Section 5, Court-fees Act, has in no way been contravened. The final order will be passed by the taxing Judge himself in the light of the observations of this Full Bench.

(2.) The suit was instituted by the nephew and the son of Sunder Lal, who had executed a mortgage deed on 20 December 1918 in favour of the defendant- appellant Kalu Ram. In the mortgage suit the present plaintiffs also were impleaded under the guardianship of their grandmother. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 16 September 1925, which resulted in a final decree on 2 April, 1927. In the present suit the plaintiffs sought to avoid the mortgage deed on the ground that it was fictitious and without consideration and legal necessity, the compromise on the ground of fraud, and the decree on the ground of negligence and collusion of the guardian. Two main reliefs claimed were as follows : (1) The mortgage-deed dated 20 December 1918, and registered on 21 December 1918 may be adjudged void and ineffectual as against the plaintiffs and it may be cancelled. (2) The compromise and the preliminary decree, dated 16 September 1925, and the absolute decree, dated 2 April, 1927 of Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jhansi In re Kalu Ram V/s. Sunder Lal may be cancelled.

(3.) The plaintiffs valued the first relief at Rs. 5,000 and paid Rs. 10 as court-fee thereon and valued the second relief at Rs.- 6,276-3-9 and paid another Rs. 10 on it. A difference arose between the Registrar, who is the taxing officer of this Court, and the appellant's counsel, and the former referred the matter to the taxing Judge, who has referred the following questions to us : (1) What provisions of the Court-fees Act determine the court-fee payable in respect of relief No. 1, i.e., that the mortgage-deed in suit may be declared void and ineffectual as against the plaintiffs, and that it may be can-celled? (2) What provisions of the Court-fees Act determine the court-fee payable in respect of relief No. 2, i.e., that the specified compromise and decrees may be cancelled?