PRABEEN CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. MOHAMMAD IDRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs who are opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in this application brought Title suit 217 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, for declaration of their title in respect of Schedule A properties and also for a declaration of their title in respect of compensation mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. Originally two declaratory court-fees were paid. Objection was raised by the defendants to the sufficiency of the Court-fee stamps. THE Court below, after taking evidence on the issue as to whether the Court-fee paid was sufficient or not, came to the conclusion that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiffs was sufficient.

(2.) WHEN the matter came before the Stamp Reporter, he questioned the maintainability of the civil revision application at the instance of the defendants petitioners. The matter was placed before the learned Registrar who thought it proper that the question of maintainability of the civil revision be placed before the Bench at the time of admission. At the time of hearing of the application, learned Counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary point in the case that the defendants have got no locus standi to file this Civil revision application, and in support of his contention, he referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramkhelawan Sahu v. Bir Surendra Sahi, AIR 1938 Pat 22 (FB) and the Supreme Court decision in Sri Rathanvarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299, which had been referred to in his report by the Stamp Reporter. In mv opinion, the objection taken by the Stamp Reporter as well as the preliminary point raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party is well founded and must be accepted.

(3.) THE view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkhelawan Sahu finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1299 wherein it has been observed as follows :--