LUHARO Vs. LAFIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of court-fee. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit, giving rise to this appeal, was really one for declaration and the prayer for correction of the entries in the revenue records was an unnecessary surplusage. In fact, he pointed out that the civil court could not legally direct the correction of the revenue record. He, therefore, contended that as a suit for declaration, the court-fee paid, i.e., Rs. 15/-, was in accordance with Schedule II, Article 17 (iii), Court-fees (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1952.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that we must look to the plaint as it stands. He urged that it was immaterial whether the consequential relief, claimed in the plaint, could be granted by the civil Court or not.

(3.) It seems to me that, in construing the plaint, the Court must look at the substance of the plaint rather than at its mere form. I am supported in this view by-- 'Verkata Ranga Rao v. Sitarama Chandra Rao', AIR 1941 Mad 91 (A), where Wadsworth, J., observed as follows: