CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS Vs. ZILA PARISHAD UNNAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision hat been filed by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P. under Section 6-B of the Court Fees Act and arises from an order dated 21-8-1968 passed by the Civil Judge, Unnao, re jecting his opinion on the question of defi ciency fa court-fees by holding that the court-fees paid on the plaint by the opposite party was sufficient The suit out of which the present revision arises was filed by the Zila Parishad, Unnao, against the State of U. P. and another. The subject-matter of dispute is open land with a building, well etc. According to the plaintiff the building on the disputed land was constructed with funds belonging to the erstwhile District Board of Unnao and the land as well as building and well in dispute have been and are fa the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff has re ceived a notice of resumption of this pro perty from the defendants who claimed that the land is Nazul property and the building was constructed with public donations. The plaintiff denied that this is Nazul property and, contested that it could not be resum ed and alternatively they contend that work of permanent character having been put up, land could not be resumed under law even if the Zila Parishad was not found to pos sess any right or title thereto. On these facts the plaintiff claimed a decree for dec laration that it is the owner of the suit pro perty and permanent injunction by which the defendants may be restrained from interfer ing with its possession.

(2.) THE plaintiff paid maximum court-fees prescribed by law on the relief of dec laration and separate court-fee on the relief of injunction on the ground, as stated fa the plaint itself, that injunction was being claimed as an independent relief. During the trial the Chief Inspector of Stamps rais ed an objection that the plaintiff-opposite party had not paid the court-fees required by law. In his opinion the relief of injunc tion was consequential to the relief of decla ration and, therefore, court-fee was liable to be paid under Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act on the market value of the immo vable property fa suit. This opinion of the Chief Inspector of Stamps was not accepted by the Civil Judge who relied upon the case of Murli Dhar v. Bansidhar, AIR 1963 All 86 and distinguished the case of Vibhuti Narain Singh v. Municipal Board, Allahabad, AIR 1958 All 41 on which reliance wat placed by the Chief Inspector of Stamps.

(3.) I , therefore, find that there is no substance in the petition which is liable to be dismissed and held that the court-fees paid by the plaintiff-opposite party is suffi cient and in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.