SADHYA CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision, directed against an order of the learned Munsif, Berhampur, whereby he directed that the plaintiff shall value the suit land at Rs. 1000/- and pay proper Court fee after deducting the fees already paid.

(2.) THE only point for consideration in this Civil Revision is whether the case comes under Section 7 (iv) (c) or Section 7 (xi) (d) or (e) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (Act vii of 1870 ). The settled legal position for determination of such question is that it is the real nature and substance of the plaint in the suit and not merely the form which has to be carefully considered by Court in this context. The Court must take care not to be misled by dexterity or skill of draftsmanship of the pleading but must always go deeper in order to scrutinise what is the real nature of the suit; if really the real purpose behind the suit is to finally adjudicate the question of title involved particularly as against the third party alienee and without the determination of which the relief in respect of the property in suit cannot be obtained, it cannot be taken to be purely a suit for relief other than for declaration of title and thus cannot be stamped on the basis of a suit other than a suit for declaration of title; indeed the) scrutiny ought to be made cautiously; the Court is not to import into the plaint anything which it does not really contain, whether actually or by necessary implication. That is to say, the Court should take the plaint as it is and not as it may j think it ought to have been in the way that the i relief,--not asked for deliberately, and the i plaintiff takes the risk in that behalf-cannot be imported into the plaint. The test in such cases was clearly laid down in a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in, Sadananda Sahu v. State of orissa, Civil Revn. No. 96 of 1960, D/- 18-1-1961 unreported (Since reported in air 1962 Orissa 102 ).

(3.) IN the light of the above position in law, I have to consider the facts of the present case for determination of the question of court-fees, On which the trial court had passed the order as aforesaid. In the present case, the facts are these; On March 9, 1948 the plaintiff took an yearly lease of 5 acres of land from the Public Works Department on a premium of rs. 698/3/2; the plaintiff executed a lease deed, in favour of the Public Works department, on condition that the plaintiff would maintain the land, pay rental of rs. 27/8/- per annum and reclaim the land which was fallow land. Up to June 16, 1959 the plaintiff remained in possession on payment of yearly rent. On June 16, 1959 the S. D. O. Irrigation Department served notice on the plaintiff intimating that the land would be put to auction on June 29, 1959 and leased out to the highest bidder; thereupon the plaintiff made certain representations against such notice. On June 26, 1959 the plaintiff was served with notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (Sic ). Then on June 29, 1959 the auction was held, which, however, was adjourned till July 13, 1959 for want of bidders. On July 13, 1959 the plaintiff is stated to have made a bid for Rs. 100/- per year, which wan the highest bid; the department instead of accepting the plaintiffs bid, however, leased out the land in favour of opposite party No. 4 herein (defendant No. 4 in the suit) whose bid was for Rs. 75/- per year; thereupon the plaintiff filed T. S. No. 116 Of 1959 in the Court of the Munsif for following reliefs: