MOHD IKRAMUDDIN Vs. SANGRAM BOSLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21.2.2007 passed in O.S.No.67 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Metpalli, by which the plaintiff's counsel was directed to pay the deficit Court Fees for declaration of registration sale deed No.491/2003 dated 22.4.2003 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as contemplated under Section 37 of Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for brevity "Court Fees Act").

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.67 of 2006 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. As a transaction took place between the defendants wherein the 2nd defendant sold away the land in question to the 1st defendant, the petitioner consequently sought for a declaration that the registered sale deed document No.491/2003, dated 22.4.2003 is null and void. As it is a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession the petitioner paid the Court fee under Section 24(d) of the Court Fees Act, however the trial Court took an objection about the payment of court fees and accordingly, a check slip was issued to the plaintiff directing him to pay the Court fees under Section 37 of the Court Fees Act as the plaintiff is asking for declaration of registration of sale deed as null and void and not binding on him. The order dated 21.2.2007 is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. All the suits for declaration with or without consequential relief are dealt with under Section 24 of the Court Fees Act. When the prayer is for declaration and possession of the property for which the declaration is sought, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property. Similarly, when the prayer is for declaration and consequently injunction and the relief sought for is with reference to any immovable property, the Court fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on Rs.300/- whichever is higher. Section 37 of the Court Fees Act deals with suits for cancellation of decree for money or any other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, then fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit. No doubt, the suit is one for declaration of title as well as for possession of the plaint schedule property and the prayer also includes consequential declaration that the sale deed registered by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent is not binding on the petitioner-plaintiff. I find force in the contention Sri Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as the plaintiff is not a party to the registered sale deed, he need not ask for cancellation of it, and the plaintiff is perfectly justified in asking for consequential relief of declaration that the sale deed is not binding on him, and to be more on safe side, he sought for the relief "for declaration that the sale deed is null and void" and paid the Court fees under the provisions of Section 24(d) of the Act. It does not mean that the suit falls under Section 37 but not under Section 24(d) of the Court Fees Act. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami Ayyangar Vs. Rangachariar at page 118 held that a plaintiff who is not eo nominee a party to the suit or a document is not bound to sue for a declaration or cancellation of it. In fact, the Judges of the Full Bench followed the judgment of the Privy Council in Bijoy Gopala Mukerji Vs. Krishna Mahishi Debi wherein it is observed thus: