Sudha Jaiswal vs Sunil Jaiswal

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.

Order dated 09.04.2014 in Civil Suit No.5-A/2013 by First Additional District Judge, Shahdol is being assailed vide this writ petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.

Vide impugned order trial Court while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by defendant No.2 has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fees on the value of plaint as per provisions envisaged under Section 7(iv)(c) and (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

In the suit in question, plaintiff seeks following relief :

The plaintiff affixed the fixed Court fees, though had valued the suit for Rs.122 crores.

Objections were raised on behalf of defendant No.2 that since as per relief clause the plaintiff has sough consequential relief of a declaration that any past transaction is not binding on the plaintiff, she is liable to pay the Court fees as per provisions under Section 7(iv)(c) & (v) of Court Fees Act.

The trial Court finding substantial force in the objection has by impugned order directed to pay Court fees as per section 7(iv)(c) & (v) of 1870 Act.

Section 7(iv)(c) & (v) of 1870 Act respectively provides :

"7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.

� The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:�

(i) ...

(ii) ...

(iii) ...

(iv) In suits�

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief � to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed.

(d) ...

(e) ...

(f) ...

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he value the relief sought.

(v) for possession of lands, houses and gardens � in suits for possession of lands, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject matter, and such value shall be deemed to be � where subject matter is land, and

(a) such land is assessed to land revenue or land revenue is payable in respect of such land-twenty times the land revenue so assessed or so payable;

(b) such land forms a part of land which is assessed to land revenue or in respect of which land revenue is payable twenty times of the land revenue proportionately worked out for such part of land;

(c) such land is not assessed to land revenue � twenty times of the land revenue worked out at the rate of [ten rupees] per acre;�

The plaintiff opposed the application contending inter alia that except a declaration and permanent injunction, which is consequential, no other relief having been sought, the plaintiff has rightly affixed fixed Court fees.

The trial Court observed :

It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court has misconstrued the sequential relief as the consequential relief which has led to an erroneous direction to pay Court fees as per section 7(iv)(c) & (v) of 1870 Act. Petitioner has relied on the following decisions : Sathappa Chettiar vs. Ramnathan Chettiar : 1958 AIR 245; Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur, ; Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh Vs. Paras Nath Singh and Others, ; Baldeo Singh Raghuraj Singh Vs. Gopal Singh Raghuraj Singh and Others, ; Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, ; Joginder Singh vs. Ramesh : PH [CR.No.5894/2013]; Amar Gupta vs. Sanjiv Kumar; Ashok Kumar Bafna vs. Kewal Chand Bafna : [W.P.No.1888/2012 decided on 20.04.2014]; N.N. Estate Private Ltd. vs. Surinder Goyal; Kalu Ram Vs. Babu Lal and Others, ; Murli Dhar vs. Bansidhar : 1961 U.P. High Court; Neelavathi and Others Vs. N. Natarajan and Others, ; Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others, .

The expressions consequential relief as it appear under Section 7(iv)(c) has taken a meaning from various judicial pronouncements "means some relief which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantive relief.� In Kalu Ram Vs. Babu Lal and Others, it was observed that "if the relief claimed in any case is found in reality to be tantamount to a substantial relief and not a mere ''on consequential relief'' in the above sense the plaintiff must pay Court fees on the substantial relief.�

Trite it being that the question of Court fee must be considered in the light of the allegation made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. (see - Neelavathi and Others Vs. N. Natarajan and Others, . In the case at hand fair reading of paragraph 8 of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has been excluded from the suit property which she � plaintiff alleges to be a Joint Hindu Family Property and seeks a declaration to that effect and the consequential relief . In paragraph 8 it is averred :

Consequence thereof the relief sought is :

The relief is in two parts and unless the suit property is declared to a Joint Hindu Family Property, the relief in the second part of relief clause (v) cannot be granted, which in substance is not a relief in sequence but in consequence, which makes the petitioner/plaintiff liable for the Court fees as per section 7(iv)(c).

As regard to liability determined under Section 7(v) of 1870 Act, apparent, it is from the pleadings that the plaintiff besides being excluded from the suit property is deprived from the possessions thereof which being the consequence of the declaration sought, the petitioner is rightly held liable to pay Court fees as per section 7(c) of 1870 Act.

Being analysed thus, no case is made out to interfere with the decision arrived at by Trial Court.

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.