2001 (10) TMI 1184 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Will and creation of the Trust.
2. Quantum of court fee leviable on the claim set up in the plaint.
3. Joint possession of the property by the plaintiff.
4. Maintainability of the civil revision.
5. Amendment of the plaint to omit consequential reliefs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Will and Creation of the Trust:
The plaintiff challenged the Will dated 1.6.1982 executed by Raja Harinder Singh, alleging it was a result of misrepresentation, undue influence, and was fictitious. The plaintiff claimed that the Will was not made voluntarily and was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The Will purported to create the Maharwal Khewaji Trust, which the plaintiff sought to declare invalid, void, and unenforceable.

2. Quantum of Court Fee Leviable on the Claim Set Up in the Plaint:
The main issue for adjudication was the quantum of court fee payable. The defendants argued that the suit properties were worth several crores and that the suit was not merely for a declaration but also for consequential reliefs, necessitating court fee based on the market value of the property. The trial court held that the suit was not properly valued for court fee purposes and directed the plaintiff to assess the market value and make up the deficiency. The plaintiff contended that she was in joint possession and sought a simpliciter declaration, arguing that the injunction claimed was independent and not consequential.

3. Joint Possession of the Property by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff claimed joint possession of the property and argued that the defendants' admission in the written statement precluded them from contesting the plaintiff's possession. The court, however, determined that the quantum of court fee must be assessed based on the allegations in the plaint, not the defendants' admissions. The court found that the relief of 'deemed joint possession' was consequential to the declaration sought regarding the Will.

4. Maintainability of the Civil Revision:
The defendants contended that the civil revision was not maintainable, citing Mahant Sunder Dass Chela Mahant Arjan Dass v. Gurpartap Das. The court, however, did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the quantum of court fee.

5. Amendment of the Plaint to Omit Consequential Reliefs:
The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to omit the consequential reliefs claimed, filing a civil miscellaneous application. The court noted that the plaintiff is at liberty to move an application for amendment at any stage. If such an application is made, the trial court should allow the amendment and permit the defendants to file a written statement to the amended plaint, including any defenses regarding the sufficiency of the court fee. The trial court should then frame an issue on the sufficiency of the court fee and decide it on merits along with other issues.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the civil revisions, upholding the trial court's order directing the plaintiff to correctly assess the market value of the suit property and make up the deficiency in court fee. The court allowed the plaintiff the liberty to amend the plaint to omit consequential reliefs, with the trial court to decide on the sufficiency of the court fee after such amendment.