BHIKAM CHANDRA Vs. GHICHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the order impugned, the trial Court in a suit for declaration and injunction has directed applicant -plaintiff to pay ad -valorem Court fee under section 7(iv) (c) of the court Fee Act at the value for which the sale deed in -question was executed by respondent -defendant No.1 in favour of other defendants.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the plaintiff is not a party to the said sale -deed and he claims declaration of his title to the suit property under some agreement of sale allegedly executed in his favour by the former owner of the property. He further claims to be in possession of the property and on that basis he is seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession of the suit land. It is well settled that for the purpose of determining question of court fee, only plaint averments are to be seen without going into the contentions made in the W.S. A person, who is not a party to a deed or a decree need not to seek its cancellation and it is sufficient for him to seek a declaration with such a deed that deed is void and ineffective and not binding on him. In such a situation, his suit would not fall u/s 7(iv) (c) of the court Fee Act and no ad -valorem court fee on the value of the sale deed is required to be paid. As held by this court in Varud Ahmed v. Nihal Ahmed [1996 Vol. I MP WN 235] and Nainsukh Kishandas v. Smt. Manish Choudhary [1998 Vol. 2 MPLJ 79] for the relief of declaration fixed court fee Rs. 30/ - would be payable under Entry 17 of the Schedule 2 of the Act and relief of injunction can be valued separately under section 7(iv) (d) of the Act. In the instant case, the Court below clearly fell into error in directing the plaintiff to value the suit at the amount of sale and pay ad -valorem court fee.