SABINA ALIAS FARIDA Vs. MOHAMMAD ABDUL WASIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the order 21-2-92 passed in Civil Suit (unregistered) by the learned Ist Additional Distict Judge, Bhopal, directing the plaintiff to pay the proper Court-fee, has preferred this revision.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the present revision are that the plaintiff claiming to be an owner and title holder prayed for a declaration that the House No. 25 (the suit house) belongs to her exclusively and the defendant has no right and is not entitled to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. For the purposes of the declaration the plaintiff valued the suit for Rupees Three lacs but, however, paid the fixed Court-fee under Schedule II, Article 17 of the Court-fees Act and for the purposes of the injunction valued it for Rs. 300/- and paid Court-fees Rs. 30/-, in all valued the suit for Rs. 3,00,300/- and paid Rs. 60/- as Court fees. The learned trial Court before registration of the suit, while checking the plaint came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit. It is note-worthy that in the order itself referring to State of M.P. v. Ramswarup, 1977 (2) MPWN 306 the Court below has observed that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and the alleged declaration is in relation to her title only, therefore, the Court-fees on the market value of the property is not required. However, the Court below referring to S.R.M. Ars. Sp. Sathappa Chattiar v. S.R.M. Ar. Rm. Ramanatham Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 observed that the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to clear the ambiguity between the valuation of the suit and the Court-fee. Being aggrieved by this order the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) Shri Jain submitted that for attraction of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act the consequential relief must flow directly from the declaration or without such consequential relief either the declaration, or without the declaration such a consequential relief cannot be granted. According to him Article 17 of Schedule II would be applicable for the purposes of the Court-fees and the plaintiff being the dominus litis was entitled to put his own valuation of the property for the purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. On the other hand Shri Lalwani submitted that in the instant case the plaintiff could not have sought an injunction unless she was declared owner of the property and unless injunction is granted in her favour no declaration can be made. According to him Section 7(iv)(c) fully applies to the facts of the case.3A. Section 7(iv)(c) refers to a prayer for a declaratory decree and consequential relief. Where the plaintiff wants to claim an injunction which is consequence of declaration or where without declaration of right or status the injunction cannot be granted, Section 7(iv)(c) would apply with full force. Section 7(iv)(d) relates to the relief of the injunction. Article 17 of Schedule II of Court-fee Act refers to certain suits wherein the fixed Court-fee is to be paid. It relates to such relief where the plaintiff seeks to obtain declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. Section 7(iv)c) and Article 17 of Schedule II read together lead to only irresistible conclusion that if no consequential reliefs is prayed for Section 7(iv)(c) would not be applicable and plaintiff is not liable to pay the Court-fees on the market value of the property as a simple declaration would be sufficient. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshersingh v. Rajinder Prashad, AIR 1973 SC 2384 has observed as under :-The expression "consequential relief" means some relief, which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a "substantial relief". In the matter of Mahant Purshottam Dass v. Har Narain, AIR 1978 Delhi 114 (FB), the High Court following the observations of the Supreme Court further held that where the Court held that the plaintiffs could not claim the relief of injunction without praying for declaration as prayed for, it must also be held that the relief of declaration and injunction prayed for is a claim to obtain declaratory relief where consequential relief is prayed for.