DHARMENDER Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction, the defendant moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating the suit had not been properly valued and hence it was liable to be rejected. The trial Court partially accepted the contention and while not still rejecting the plaint, it found that the suit had not been properly valued and directed the court fee to be paid on the cancellation of two documents of sale referred to in the plaint and further finding that the suit valuation, if so adopted, would be beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court directed the suit to be represented before the Hon'ble District Judge, Rewari for appropriate orders. The plaintiffs are aggrieved against the order and have failed the civil revision petitioners before this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the reference to the sales by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and others were without any right by him and being themselves not parties to the documents, the documents did not require to be set aside. There is consequently no need for paying ad valorem court fee. The second submission adverted to by the learned counsel was the relief of injunction which is sought for in the plaint is not consequential to the main relief of declaration and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to adopt notional valuation and pay the court fee as already done on the plaint.

(3.) THESE decisions have no bearing at all to this case since the issue is not merely whether the plaintiffs are required to seek for cancellation of the documents. As I have already observed, the plaintiffs are not claimants under the first respondent, the plaintiffs themselves are not parties to the transaction to which the first defendant was a party. There is, therefore, no ground for requiring the plaintiffs to value the relief of cancellation of documents, as directed by the trial Court. However, it is still not possible for the plaintiff to adopt a notional valuation and allow the plaintiffs to evade payment of appropriate court fee under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fee Act, 1870. The reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs felt threatened by the action of the fraudulent and invalid sales made by the first defendant without any right over the properties. The relief of injunction was sought on the basis that the plaintiffs were owners and they were entitled to be protected in their possession by the relief of injunction. Here the injunction, which is sought by separately valuing the same was actually consequential to the relief of declaration. The declaratory suit which is sanctioned under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act sets out as follows :-