AMAR KAUR ETC Vs. PARKASH CHAND ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Jullundur, holding that the suit had to be valued under Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the proper provision under which the suit is to be valued is Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Act. The matter is not resintegra and is concluded by two decisions of this Court in Jagat Singh v. Avtar Singh, 1970 CurLJ 80, and Man Singh v. Shiv Karna, Civil Revision No. 749 of 1970 decided on 8-1-1971. In the latter case, the facts were identical.

(3.) Mr. G.R. Majitia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to Sheel Kumar v. Aditya Narain,1964 PunLR 916, for his contention that the suit in fact is for declaration and cancellation that the suit in fact is for by way of consequential relief. This contention is wholly devoid of force. I have gone through the plaint and in unmistakable terms it states that the suit is for cancellation of the gift-deed and as a consequential relief injunction is prayed for. Therefore, when a suit is for cancellation of instrument with a consequential relief for injection, it will not fall within the ambit of Section 7(iv)(c) or even Section 7(v). The only residuary provision, is Article Schedule 1, and it will come into play, and it is on that basis that the Judge proceeded to deal with the case.