ASHOK Vs. NARASINGH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is aggrieved by an order of the trial Court whereby it has been held that the plaintiff must pay proper ad valorem court-fees.

(2.) EARLIER a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was instituted by Nara-singhrao (now defendant No. 1) against the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 8. That was Civil Suit No. 150-A/1968 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Gwa-lior. In that suit, the plaintiff was described as a minor and Kishan defendant No. 3 was appointed as guardian ad litem. Eventually, in that suit a compromise decree was passed. That decree is being challenged in the present suit on the ground that the plaintiff (there defendant) had attained the age of majority and further it was misrepresented in the compromise that he was under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Ramabai (defendant No. 5 ). It is alleged in the plaint that fraud was practised upon the court by his mother, defendant No. 5, who arrogated to herself the position of a guardian. The decree is challenged as null and void and as fraudulently obtained. 3. In the relief clause, there is no proper prayer for setting aside the decree, but merely declaration has been sought that the decree is ineffective and void as against the plaintiff.

(3.) THE trial Court has held that the suit for mere declaration is not maintainable. It was necessary for the plaintiff to claim consequential relief of setting aside the decree and further that the plaintiff had to pay ad valorem court-fees.