AKHLAQ AHMAD AND ORS Vs. MT KARAM ILAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of a report of the Stamp Reporter. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a sale-deed which had been executed by her on 17th October 1926, in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was void and ineffectual as against her. The plaint was stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 10 only. The defendants appealed, but their appeal was dismissed, and they have filed a second appeal in this Court, and on both appeals, they have paid a court-fee of Rs. 10 only. The Stamp Reporter is of opinion that Rs. 115 is now due from the plaintiff-respondent and Rs. 230 from the defendants-appellants.

(2.) The learned Government Advocate supports the view taken by the Stamp Reporter while counsel for the plaintiff pleads that his suit was under Section 42 Specific Relief Act, and that since he was asking for no consequential relief and was prepared to accept the consequences of not having claimed any such relief the plaint was property stamped. In Radha Krishna v. Ram Narain , it was held by a Bench of this Court that when a plaint - as amended - was to the effect that it be declared that a compromise and decree were ineffectual as against the plaintiff, the suit as framed was to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief was prayed, and therefore it was sufficiently stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 10 and the learned Judges expressed the opinion that the question of court-fee must be decided on the plaint itself. In the course of its judgment the Court reviewed the decisions of other High Courts in which there was a conflict of opinion. The case of Mahammad Ismail v. Liyaqat Husain , was also a case relating to a decree and my learned brother there observed:

(3.) This case was referred to by a Bench of this Court in Brij Gopal v. Suraj Karan . In that case the plaint as amended was for a declaration that an agreement and a will executed by certain deceased members of the family were null and, void and did not bind the plaintiff and that certain property belonged jointly to the parties; and the learned Judges held that: