RANCHHODDAS SHAMJI KHIRANI Vs. BALWANT KAUR MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The difficulty isc applying the second proviso incorporated by the Punjab Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1953. which has been extended to Delhi to section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act to properties other than land, houses and gardens led one of us (Andley J.) to refer this revision to a larger Bench.

(2.) The petitioners as plaintiffs filed Suit No. 82 of 1962 against the respondent in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi. The suit was for declaration and injunction; for payment of a specific amount; for payment of amounts that may be due during and after the disposal of the suit: for interest and for delivery of future dividend warrants. The case of the petitioners was that the respondent had. in 1954. sold 186 ordinary shares of the Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd., a public limited company, to petitioner No. 1 in consideration of Rs. 4650 and in exchange for and against delivery by the respondent of the respective share certificates with the relative transfer forms executed by the respondent in blank. The respondent is also alleged to have given an undertaking at the time that all documents of title as may be required will be executed by the respondent to complete the petitioners' title as a shareholder; that all new shares that may be issued to the respondent will be transferred in the name of the petitioners and all documents in connection therewith shall be delivered to the petitioners and all dividend warrants with respect to the shares sold which may be received by the respondent in future will be delivered to the petitioners till the shares are transferred in the books of the company in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners stated that various dividends were declared for various years mentioned in the plaint. The petitioners further stated that they applied to the company for the transfer of the said shares in the name of the second petitioner but the dividend warrants were sent by the company to the respondent as the said company had refused to register the shares in the name of petitioner No. 2. The petitioners averred that they were entitled to Rs. 3,975.50 representing the dividends which had been realised by the respondent and they were further entitled to a declaration that the respondent held the said shares: the property rights therein and the dividends accruing in respect thereof in trust and for the benefit of the petitioners and it was prayed that the respondent be restrained permanently by injunction from exercising any of the property rights annexed to the said shares and to carry out the respondent's undertaking to deliver to the petitioners all future dividend warrants. The petitioners paid ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 3.975.50 in respect of the dividends received by the respondent. On the claim for declaration and injunction etc.. the petitioners paid court-fee on a valuation of Rs. 200 having valued their claim in this behalf at that figure. The reliefs claimed by the petitioners, which are relevant to the present controvery, were these :-

(3.) The respondent objected to the valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and also stated that some of the reliefs claimed were vague. The trial Court by its order dated August 8. 1962, found that relief (d) as to interest was vague and directed the petitioners to apply for necessary amendment. This finding of the trial Court is not challenged in this Court.