JAGDISH PERSHAD Vs. JOTI PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners feeling dis-satisfied with the order dated 30th April, 1974, passed by Shri S. R. Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi, have challenged the same by this rsvi.sion petition.

(2.) The findings of the trial Court were assailed on the ground that the case set up by the respondent was to enforce his right to share in the immovable property in suit on the plea that it was joint family property and he being not in possession of the same as averred in the written statement, the court-fees payable ought to have been computed as per provisions of section 7(iv) (b) of the Court-fees Act (herein to be called 'the Act') on the market value of his share in the immovable property; that he further claims share in the jewellery in the sum of Rs. 13927 and l/7th share of Rs. 6,000 and he admittedly being not in possession of any portion of the said assets the suit should have been separately valued for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee and should have paid separate and ad valorem court-fees on the said amounts.

(3.) It is settled law that to determine prima fade the nature of the suit it is the plaint which has to be examined. For the purpose of determining the appropriate provision of the Act applicable to a suit, the criterion to be kept in view is the frame of the suit. It is not of much relevance for the purpose of ascertaining the court-fees payable on a plaint as to what terminology is used in the plaint but what in fact is the substance of the plaint. The Court-fees payable on a plaint has to be determined on the allegations in the plaint as the suit would proceed on the assumption set out in the plaint.