YUV RAJ Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.9.2005 vide which application moved by the petitioners-defendants for rejecting plaint on the ground of deficiency of court-fee has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed dated 21.7.2004 as well as mutation No. 423 dated 30.9.2004 in favour of defendant No. 2 being null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and further seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The petitioners-defendants filed an application in the said suit seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that proper court-fee had not been affixed. The consideration of sale-deed is stated to be Rs. 2,92,500/-. However, the market price of the land is not less than Rs. 8 lacs. Hence the plaintiffs are to affix the court-fee as per the market price of the land. It is pleaded that respondents-plaintiffs have affixed only Rs. 25/- as court-fee which is not properly valued. The application moved by the petitioners-defendants was opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that they have sought cancellation of a sale-deed being void, ab initio on the ground that no such transaction took place on he alleged date. The respondents-plaintiffs further stated that market value of the property was only Rs. 10,000/- in the year 1994 and its present market value would not be more than Rs. 50,000/-. The application moved by the petitioners-defendants was rejected by the trial Court holding that respondents' second relief in the plaint is a consequential relief and not substantive one and as soon as the respondents would be declared entitled for the main relief, the second relief would die its own death. Therefore, the respondents are not required to pay the ad valorem court-fee.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs are seeking decree of declaration on the basis of sale consideration which took place in the year 1994 and if plaintiffs' right is established on the ground of earlier sale transaction, then the subsequent sale transaction will become null and void, whereas, the defendants are contesting the suit on the basis of subsequent transaction which took place on 21.7.2004. Therefore, the court-fee as required under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 (in short 'the Act') is required to be paid.