LINMAT JAGANNATH SAHU Vs. PURUSHOTTAM NARAYAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants-plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22nd February, 1983 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, raipur in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 81 requiring them to pay deficit court-fees have approached this Court by filing the present revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and title of the disputed property and paid court-fees of Rs. 30 for the relief of declaration and the requisite court-fees for relief of possession. Their case, as contained in the plaint was that the land originally belonged to one Jagannath who died on 22-5-1981. Being widow and daughter of the deceased Jagannath applicants-plaintiffs claim to succeed to the aforesaid land. They alleged that jagannath was ailing since last several years and was otherwise old, infirm and illiterate person. It is alleged that the non-applicant's mother acting on behalf of the applicants got a sale-deed executed regarding the suit land and house from deceased Jagannath for a sum of Rs. 32,000 after making a fraudulent representation that such a course of action was required to properly manage the property. It was further alleged that the said Shri jagannath was not paid any consideration for the aforesaid sale. Later on, when the deceased Jagannath learnt of the fraudulent activities he requested the non-applicants' parents to get the sale-deed cancelled. They also alleged that the said sale was effected by fraud and misrepresentation and hence was void. The applicants did not seek any relief of cancellation of sale-deed but prayed for a declaration that it was void and ineffective.

(3.) THE non-applicants-defendants raised an objection that the suit was not properly valued for court-fees inasmuch as no court-fees had been paid for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed. It was also submitted that the plaint has been very cleverly worded so that though the main relief is the relief of cancellation of sale-deed it seeks only the relief of declaration. The trial Court has upheld the objection and hence the present revision. In Santoshchandra v. Smt. Gyansundarbai, 1970 MPLJ 363. a Full Bench of this Court considered the requirement of payment of court-fees and reiterated its earlier view in Dattaji Parasharamji Patil v. Mst. Bliagirathi ILR 1939 Nag 373. by clearly stating