DHARAMRAJ SINGH Vs. VAIDYA NATH PRASAD KHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the plaintiff against order dated 8-9-2001 of the 1st Additional District Judge Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 22-A of 2000 by which he has been directed to value the suit for purposes of Court-fee at Rs. 82,500/- and pay ad valorem Court-fee.

(2.) The relevant averments in the plaint are that the defendant No. 1 granted sub-lease of a portion of the plot shown in red colour in the plaint map to the plaintiff by lease deed dated 29-7-1995 and placed him in possession thereof; the plaintiff is in possession of this land and has raised some construction thereon; the defendant No. 1 has got surrender deed dated 31-12-1999 in respect of this land registered in his favour in which a consideration of R.85,500/- has been shown the plaintiff has not signed on this deed and he is not a party to it; it is forged and the defendant No. 1 is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from that plot. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration that the said surrender deed is void and of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession on the plot.

(3.) It is well settled that the question of Court-fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by final decision of the suit on merits. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court long back in Sathappa v. Ramanathan, AIR 1958 SC 245 and has been recently referred to by the Full Bench of this Court in Subhash Chand v. MPEB (2000) 3 MPLJ 522. The impugned order shows that the trial Judge was aware of this principle and that it has not applied it while deciding the dispute regarding payment of Court-fee. He has unnecessarily referred to the pleas of the defendant No. 1 in this respect. He has gone into the question whether the plaintiff is in "settled possession" of the land or not. As already stated, the allegation in the plaint is decisive for computation of Court-fee. The question of settled possession or unsettled possession is irrelevant.