SURINDER KAUR Vs. G S BAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application has been filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. THE present suit has been filed by the plaintiff No.1 for and on behalf of her husband, plaintiff No.2 herein as his next friend seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) IT is averred in the application filed by the defendant that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as the same is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and that all the reliefs prayed for in the plaint have to be separately valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. IT is stated by defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs themselves have alleged in para 4(viii) of the plaint that the value of suit property was not less than Rs.300 Crores in the year 2002, when the sale deed stood signed, executed and registered in favour of defendant No.1. In terms of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the court fees has to be affixed on the market value of the property thus, in the present case also the court fees will have to be fixed on the market value, which according to plaintiffs themselves was not less than Rs.300 Crores in the year 2002.

(3.) AS per the plaintiffs, the relief of declaration and cancellation of the sale deed are one and the same and the suit has been rightly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and proper court fees has been paid thereon. It is also stated that the Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, is not applicable in the present suit and the court fees does not have to be affixed on the market value of the property. The court fees is to be paid on the consideration for the disputed sale deed which has been shown as Rs.25,00,000/- and the same has been rightly paid. It is further stated that in the title of the suit and in the supporting affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that plaintiff No.2 is being represented by plaintiff No1 as his next friend and that she has no interest adverse to that of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs have enough proof to show that the plaintiff No.2 was of unsound mind at the relevant time and even till date he was incapable of entering into any contract or take any decision regarding his interests. Further, being the wife of plaintiff No.2, the plaintiff No.1 has every right to represent plaintiff No.2 being his next friend as per provisions of law to protect his rights qua the suit property.