KAPIL CHARAN NAYAK Vs. GITANJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was obtained by the pltf. against an order of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapur, determining a question of C.F. The pltf. instituted a suit for a declaration that the properties described in Schedule Ka of the plaint which stood in the names of his two sons, the deceased husband of opposite party No. 1 & oppt. party No. 2, were really his own properties & purchased with his own money & that the deceased husband of opposite party No. 1 & opposite party No. 2 were the pltf's Benamdars. It is admitted that the properties which are included in Schedule Ka of the plaint were purchased by 65 documents. The pltf. filed the plaint with a single C.-F. stamp of Rs. 20 & on behalf of the defts. an objection was raised to the effect that as the properties were purchased by 65 documents the pltf. was required under the Court-Fees Act to pay a separate C.-F. of Rs. 20 in respect of each of those 65 documents. By a judgment dated 8-7-1950, the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the defence contention & ordered the pltf. to pay a C.-F stamp of Rs. 20 upon each of the 65 documents & against that order the pltf. has obtained the present rule.

(2.) On behalf of the pltf. petnr. it has been argued that the declaration asked for by the pltf. is really one & it is in respect of the properties included in Schedule Ka of the plaint and the declaration asked for is to the effect that the pltf. alone is the real owner of those properties & deft. Nos. 1 & .2 are his Benamdars It is argued that the manner of acquisition of the properties of Schedule Ka cannot be taken into account in a declaration of the pltf's. title in respect of those proper, ties for the purposes of C.-F. Prayer Ka of the plaint runs as follows :

(3.) On behalf of the opposite party, however, it has been argued that Under Section 17 of the C.-F. Act the present suit is one in which two or more separate or distinct causes of action have been joined and separate & distinct reliefs are sought in respect of each & therefore the plaint is chargeable with the aggregate amount of fees with which the plaint would be chargeable is separate suits were instituted & reliance, has been placed upon the decision of this Ct. in the case of Haru Bepari v. Rai Kshitish Bhusan, 39 C. W. N. 1146. We are of the opinion however that Section 17, Court fees Act, does not apply to the present case because apart from anything else the pltf. has not asked for separate & distinct reliefs in respect of different causes of action The relief asked for is only one & that is a declaration of his own title in respect of the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit. It may be that the properties were purchased by the pltf. on the basis of different documents of title but that is no part of the real relief which is asked for by the pltf. The declaration is one & for that reason, we hold that Section 17, does not apply to the facts of the present case.