CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS Vs. GOPALJI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6-B, of the amended Court-fees Act, claiming that the court-fee under Section 7 (IV-A) is payable by the plaintiff on the plaint. The relevant allegations in the plaint are that. Bhatele Bishun Kumar and Bhatele Shiva Kumar became entitled to the property in suit under a decree passed on 27th August 1930, by the Civil Judge of Etawah, that on 19th May 1934, Bhatele Bishun Kumar executed a wakf deed by which he gave the property of his share to the plaintiff Shri Gopal Ji Maharaj, which is an idol; that thereafter Bhatele Bishun Kumar executed a sale-deed of the very same property in favour of Rajendra Kumar and Birendra Kumar, the first two defendants to the suit. The plaintiff further alleged that the sale-deed in favour of the first two defendants was fictitious, bogus and invalid. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed possession of the property in suit and also pendente lite and future mesne profits.

(2.) Inasmuch as the plaintiff has alleged, in para. 6 of the plaint, that the sale-deed executed in favour of the first two defendants is fictitious, bogus and invalid, it is contended on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Stamps that a court-fee, such as is leviable under Section 7 (IV-A), Court-fees Act is payable over and above the court-fee pay-able for the relief of possession. There is no dispute that the necessary court-fee for the relief of possession has been paid.

(3.) The validity of the contention of the Chief Inspector of Stamps depends upon whether the suit involves adjudging void or voidable the sale-deed executed by Bhatele Bishun Kumar in favour of the first two defendants, because it is not the case of the applicant that the suit is for the cancellation of the sale-deed or for adjudging it void or voidable. It is obvious from the allegations set out above that it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to have the sale-deed adjudged void in order to obtain the relief for possession claimed in the suit. The plaintiff claims upon a prior title. Therefore, if he succeeded in proving his title under the wakf-deed, he would be entitled to the possession of the property in dispute even though the sale-deed in favour of the first two defendants may be a good sale-deed. When it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have the sale-deed adjudged void in order to obtain the relief claimed in the suit, in my opinion, it can not be said that the relief of adjudging the sale-deed void is involved in the suit.