9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to sale deeds on grounds of misrepresentation and fraud, inadequate court fee affixed by plaintiff-petitioner, application filed seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, liability to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration, interpretation of Section 7(iv)(c) of Court-fees Act, 1870, applicability of consequential relief in declaratory decrees. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Sale Deeds: The plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit challenging two sale deeds on grounds of misrepresentation and fraud, seeking a declaration to set them aside and a permanent injunction against further alienation. The defendant-respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, claiming inadequate court fee affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner. 2. Ad Valorem Court Fee: The defendant-respondents argued that ad valorem court fee should be paid on the sale consideration of the sale deeds as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870. The Civil Judge accepted this argument, directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay court fee ad valorem on the sale consideration, citing relevant case law to support the decision. 3. Interpretation of Section 7(iv)(c): The revision petition challenged the order on the basis of interpretation of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The Court analyzed the provision and referred to previous judgments to establish that when a suit seeks a declaratory decree with consequential relief, ad valorem court fee is required to be paid. 4. Consequential Relief in Declaratory Decrees: The Court emphasized that the nature of relief claimed determines the court fee to be paid. It was clarified that if the main relief sought is cancellation of a deed, with the declaration being ancillary, it does not fall under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The Court highlighted the importance of assessing the substantive relief claimed in each case. 5. Decision and Dismissal: After considering submissions and precedents, the Court concluded that the revision petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that the suit involved both a declaration and consequential relief, warranting ad valorem court fee payment. The Full Bench's principle of focusing on substantive relief rather than form was reiterated, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.
|
