CHINTAMANI DEVI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 29.11.2012 by which the trial Court has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit for possession in terms of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and which Section deals with the suit for possession. Admittedly, the subject suit is a suit for declaration, injunction and possession.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner argues that relief of possession is consequential to the relief of declaration and therefore court fee need not be paid on the relief of possession under Section 7(v). For non payment of court fee under Section 7(v) of the Act thus a very strange reason is put forth that once possession is claimed as a consequential relief then, possession claimed is not an independent relief.

(3.) In my opinion, whether the relief of possession is consequential to declaration is not material because the aspect actually is that an independent relief of possession is claimed. Once an additional and independent relief of possession is claimed, then, court fee has to be paid with respect to the suit claiming the relief of possession as per Section 7(v) of the Act by valuing the property as per the market value on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit property of which possession is claimed at the market value and to pay the Court fee accordingly with respect to relief of possession claimed.