WAMAN VINAYAK PARANJPE Vs. NARAYAN HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one of the defendants in a suit filed in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge (as he then was) at Roha. The plaintiff-opponent alleged that he was the son of Hari, the adopted son of Narayan, Narayan being one of the two sons of Ballal and the other son of Ballal being one Antaji, whose wife was Laxmibai, that Laxmibai, after Antaji's death, had sold property purporting to be Antaji's property in 1912 for Rs. 2,000 and that as the two brothers, Atvtaji and Narayan, had not separated, he was entitled, as the sole surviving co-parcener, to the property which had been alienated by Laxmibai. Secondly, his case in the alternative seems to have been that even in case Antaji and Narayan had become separate, he was entitled to challenge the sale-deed, as not being based on legal necessity, after Laxmibai's death in 1930. His third alternative case was that the sale-deed which purported to have been effected by Laxmibai was in reality a mortgage and that, therefore, he was entitled to redeem the property. The plaintiff, besides asking for possession and for redemption, asked for two declarations: (1) that the document of 1912 was an illegal document and was not binding on the plaintiff and (2) that the properties were of the ownership of the plaintiff. He paid court-fee on the basis of the relief as regards redemption valued at Rs, 2,000, which according to him was higher than the valuation regarding the two declarations as aforesaid, the claims for possession being, according to the plaintiff, consequential to the declarations sought by him.

(2.) THE learned Judge held that the suit would, so far as the declarations and consequential reliefs sought by the plaintiff were concerned, fall under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, that the plaintiff would be entitled to put his own valuation thereon at. not less than Rs. 5, and that, therefore, the last relief prayed for by him being valued under Section 7 (ix) of the Act at Rs. 2,000, such valuation would govern the amount of court-fees payable. He also held that in case the market value of the property in question had to be determined, it must be the market value at the date of the alienation, i. e. in 1912, the consideration stated in the document of sale being Rs. 2,000. In the result he held that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction could not be higher than Rs. 2,000, and, therefore, holding that he had jurisdiction to try the suit, he ordered the suit to be set down for further hearing.

(3.) WITH respect we think that the principle enunciated in the two full bench cases; should govern the facts of the present case. Both those cases emphasise the necessity for the Court to ascertain the real nature of the relief sought, irrespective of the form in which the prayer or prayers for relief are framed; for instance, in every case it would perhaps be possible to ask for some kind of declaration, but it is obvious that every one of such cases is not intended to be covered by the words used in cl. " (c) of "s. 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act, and That in the present suit the claim for the declarations in question cannot be treated as a claim really necessitated by the nature of the suit, the real or principal remedy sought by the plaintiff being a decree for possession. The provisions of the Court-fees Act applicable, therefore, so far as that remedy is concerned, are those of Section 7 (v ). We do not also agree with the view of the trial Court that the market value of the houses in suit should be determined by the consideration for the transaction of 1912. That value must obviously be determined by reference to the rates prevailing in the market at the date of the suit.