BABU RAM Vs. YOGESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Babu Ram Petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale -deed dated 4th of October, 1976, is null and void, based on fraud, undue influence and coercion and prayed for setting it aside with the additional relief of permanent injunction restraining Yogesh Kumar Defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession of the land in suit. On the relief of declaration, he paid a fixed court -fee of Rs. 25/ -. In defence, the Defendant raised an objection that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction, that the court -fee paid was insufficient, that the Plaintiff was a party to the sale -deed and since cancellation of the same was necessary ad valorem court -fee on the sale consideration, which was Rs. 11,000/ - was necessary to be paid. The trial Court framed the following issue:

(2.) Mr. V.K. Jain appearing for the Petitioner, has urged that the relief of declaration is covered by Article 12 of Schedule 11 of the Court Fees Act, as held in Umarannessa Bibi v/s. Jamirannesea Bibi and Anr. : AIR 1923 Cal. 362 (F.B) and Sm. Gita Devi Bajoria v/s. Harish Chandra Saw Mills and Ors. : AIR 1971 Cal. 202. The aforesaid decisions clearly support the contention of the counsel. The relief of permanent injunction is not a consequential relief as it does not flow from the declaration sought for. Since the Plaintiff is in possession of the property in spite of the sale -deed, it was enough for him to sue for declaration but the view of our High Court has always been that the relief of declaration in such cases necessarily includes a consequential relief of declaration of the document and as such Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, as amended by the State amendments, is applicable. Since the Petitioner is succeeding before me on the other point, I do not deem it necessary to decide the point covered by the Calcutta decisions in this case.

(3.) The other argument of the learned Counsel is that even if Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, as amended by the State Legislature, is held to be applicable to this case, then in view of Sec. 7(v)(b) thereof, since the land in dispute is agricultural land, subject to land revenue, court -fee is payable at ten times the land revenue which would come to much below the court -fee already paid and as such the trial Court was in error in demanding court -fee on the amount of Rs. 11,000/ -. I find merit in this contention of the learned Counsel in view of the decisions of this Court in Mohan Singh v/s. Sm. Balbir Kaur etc. 1978 CLJ 477, Naresh Kumar v/s. Hakam Singh and Ors. 1979 PLR 137 and Labh Singh and Ors. v/s. Puran Singh 1972 PLR 29, which show that even if, Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act is applicable to this case, according to the second proviso added by the State amendment, it has to be calculated in the manner given in Clause (v). A reading of Clause (v) of Sec. 7 shows that court -fee with regard to agricultural land subject to land revenue is payable at ten times the land revenue, by virtue of sub Clause (b) of this clause and is not payable on the market value of the land. Hence the Court below was clearly in error in demanding court -fee on the sum of Rs. 11,000/ - instead of demanding court -fee at ten times the land revenue payable on the land in dispute.