CHHOTALAL KALIDAS Vs. LAXMIDAS MAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs filed Suit No. 2435 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay claiming the following reliefs : ?

(2.) SECTION 7 of the Court-fees Act by clause (iv) (c) prescribes the method of computation of Court-fee payable in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where consequential relief is claimed. In such a suit the Court-fee is to be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint but subject to the provisions of Section 8a with a minimum fee of Rs. 10. By Sec. 8a it is provided :

(3.) MR. C. S. Trivedi, who appears on behalf of the first defendant in this appeal, submits that the suit was not one falling within the description of suits covered by Sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act but the appropriate provision which governs it is Schedule II, Article 17 (iv) or (vii) ; and on that hypothesis Mr. Trivedi contends that as Sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act did not apply to the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the valuation for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction need not be the same and that the plaintiffs were bound to value for purposes of jurisdiction the claim at the market value of the 1959 Ramkrishna v. Rangoobai (J. R. Mudholkar J.) (Prs. 3-4)-[prs. 1-6] Bombay 519 property which was the subject-matter of the suit. We are unable to agree with the contention of Mr. , Trivedi. This suit cannot be regarded as one to set aside an alienation. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the auction sale held by the first defendant is void ineffective and bad in law. A suit for a declaration that a sale is "invalid and ineffective" is not a suit to set aside an alienation. Nor can it be said that the suit is one where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by the Act. The suit falls expressly within the description of a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where consequential relief is prayed) under Sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, and, therefore,, it does not fall within the scope of the residuary article 17 (vii) of Schedule II.