JAI KRISHNA DAS Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which calls for decision in this reference to the Full Bench is whether fixed Court-fees under Article 17 (iii) or (vi) of Schedule II (as paid by the plaintiff-petitioners) or ad valorem Court-fees on the value of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ (one crore) under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act VII of 1870, as amended by Punjab Act 31 of 1953 (as directed by the trial Court in its order under revision)is payable on the plaint of the suit filed by Jaikishan Dass and his two sons (plaintiff-petitioners) against Babu Ram and 34 others (defendant-respondents)for a simple declaration to the effect "that the plaintiffs are members of the Joint hindu family Panna Lal Girdhar Lal as per pedigree table (Schedule 'a' attached to the plaint) owning joint family business as enumerated in Schedule B and the properties as given in Schedule C and are entitled to enforce the right to share in them as members of the Joint Hindu family". (The prayer in the plaint has been quoted by me verbatim in the last sentence for facility of reference ). The heading of the plaint is -- "suit for declaration of plaintiffs' status and rights as members of the Joint Hindu family Pannalal Girdharlal".

(2.) IT is settled law that for deciding the question relating to the amount of Court-fees payable on a plaint, not only have the averments in the plaint alone to be taken Into account ' but the said allegations are to be assumed to be correct. Decision on the question of Court-fees payable on a plaint can neither depend on the pleas raised in defence nor on the maintainability of the suit as framed or even upon the assumption that Court must somehow spell out of the plaint such a claim which is ultimately capable of being decreed. These things are of no concern to the court deciding a dispute as to the provision of Court Fees Act under which a plaint is taxable with fees. The Court has to take the plaint as it is without omitting anything material therefrom and without reading into it by implication what is not stated therein. Let us, therefore, first see the relevant allegations made in the plaint of this case.

(3.) THE parties to the suit are descendants of a common ancestor namely late Shri girdhar Lal. The said common ancestor had five sons including (1) Babu Ram (2)Balldshan Dass. (3) Murarilal and (4) Devicharan. The fifth son Bishan Chand had died issueless in 1923. Babu Ram had in turn eight sons. Balkishan Dass left behind him six sons, the eldest of which is Jaikrishan Dass, plaintiff No. 1. Raj krishan Dass, and Vinay Krishan Dass, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff No. 1. The sons of Girdhar Lal were carrying on joint family business under the style of "panna Lal Girdhar Lal". The joint family is also alleged to have owned immovable properties mentioned in Schedule B attached to the plaint. List of the alleged joint family business is given in Schedule C attached to the plaint. A pedigree-table of the family has been given in Schedule A filed with the plaint. After making above mentioned allegations, the plaintiffs have stated in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the plaint as follows:-