DHIRENDRA NATH BANERJI Vs. NARHARI GIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the plaintiff No. 2 is directed against the judgment and order of the Court below dated the 24th of February 1951, asking him to deposit ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 18000/-.

(2.) The plaintiffs had instituted the suit on the allegation that plaintiff No. 2 had purchased certain shares in properties mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint by a registered sale deed, dated the 17th February 1937, from one Harballabh Narayan and others. Sometime in July 1951, plaintiff No. 2 executed a sale deed of relinquishment in favour of defendant No. 1 admitting that the properties purchased in his name really belong to defendant No. 1. This was followed by a registered deed of relinquishment, dated the 22nd of April 1942, to the same effect. Defendant No. 2 is an assignee of the interest of defendant No. 1. There had arisen several litigations with respect to the properties in suit including a suit for partition and a mortgage action which have been mentioned in some details in the plaint of the present suit in which, the following reliefs were claimed:

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of his contention, referred to the case of 'Ramkhelawan v. Bir Surendra', 16 Pat. 766 (FB), and also to the case of 'Ramautar v. Ram Gobind', 20 Pat. 780. But those two cases were distinguishable from the present case. In the former case the plaintiff had claimed three reliefs: (i) possession of the properties in suit, (ii) costs, and (iii) any other relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled in the opinion of the Court. Those reliefs were held not to be sufficient to bring that case within the purview of Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. In the present case, however, the reliefs claimed do attract the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. In the case of 'Ramautar v. Ram Gobind', 20 Pat. 780, it was held that the plaint in terms asked only for partition and there being no prayer for a declaration of title or for cancellation of any document, it was not proper to import those two prayers in the plaint by implication. In the present case, however, the specific reliefs claimed in the plaint themselves bring the case within the purview of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act.