9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the relief claimed and its classification under the Court-fees Act. 2. Computation of the value of the relief for court-fee purposes. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Relief Claimed and its Classification under the Court-fees Act: The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the property in dispute is wakf and that the alienations made by defendants 1 and 2 in favor of defendants 3 to 10 are null and void. The plaintiffs paid a court-fee of Rs. 10, treating the suit as one for a declaration without consequential relief under Clause (iii), Article 17, Schedule II, Court-fees Act. The defendants contended that the suit involved consequential relief in the form of cancellation of alienations and thus required ad valorem court-fee on the value of the properties involved. The trial court upheld this contention and rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, for non-payment of the necessary court-fee. The High Court examined whether the relief claimed was purely declaratory or involved consequential relief. It was established that the substance of the plaint must be considered, not merely the form of the relief claimed. The Court noted that the relief sought by the plaintiffs, though expressed as a declaration, amounted to a prayer for cancellation of the alienations, thus making it a substantive relief. The Court cited several precedents, including Shankaran Nair v. Gopala Menon, Arunachaflam Chetty v. Rangasamy Pillai, and others, to support this view. The Court concluded that the declaration that the property is wakf is purely declaratory. However, the declaration that the alienations are null and void amounts to a substantive relief requiring cancellation of the alienations. Therefore, the suit could not be treated as purely declaratory. 2. Computation of the Value of the Relief for Court-fee Purposes: The plaintiffs valued the relief at Rs. 10 lakhs for jurisdiction purposes but paid a court-fee of Rs. 10. The High Court addressed whether the plaintiffs could sue for a mere declaration without praying for consequential relief. The Court held that if the relief claimed involves substantive relief, it cannot be treated as merely declaratory. The Court cited several cases, including Sultan Khan v. Ziauddin and Bepin Singh v. Bhagwan Singh, to support this view. The Court observed that the relief claimed in the present case, i.e., the setting aside of alienations, is a substantive relief and not a consequential relief. The plaintiffs must pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of the subject matter of the sales, which was about Rs. 10 lakhs. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had already valued the relief at Rs. 10 lakhs for jurisdiction purposes and could not alter the valuation for court-fee purposes. The Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal, which held that the expression "consequential relief" means some relief that follows directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and is not specifically provided for in the Court-fees Act. The Court concluded that the relief claimed in the present case falls under the residuary article, Schedule 1, Article 1 of the Court-fees Act, requiring ad valorem court-fee on the value of the subject matter. The Court dismissed the appeal but left the parties to bear their costs, agreeing with the trial court's order demanding court-fee on the value of the property.
|
