BISHWANATH AGARWALLA Vs. NATHI BAI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 34 of 1971 in tie Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dhanbad. He has filed this application in revision against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated the 23rd August, 1971, demanding court-fee on the plaint on ad valorem basis, after rejecting the petitioner's contention that he is liable to pay a fixed court-fee of Rs. 22.50, inasmuch as the suit which he had instituted is purely one for declaration only. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the suit is really one for declaration with a consequential relief, for which the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court-fee amounting to Rs. 618.75.

(2.) Mr. Bishwanath Agrawal, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, has taken me through the plaint, a copy of which is Annexure "1" to the revision application. Learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the reliefs as claimed in paragraph 19 of the plaint, which are to the following effect:

(3.) It is well established that in order to determine whether a suit is one for a mere declaration or for a declaration and consequential relief, the Court must look to the real nature of the plaint, shorn of its verbiage, and decide what is its real substance, as opposed to its ostensible form. Even where a mere declaration is sought, the Court must look to the real nature of the plaint and consider whether or not the plaintiff has also sought some consequential relief by necessary implication. If the Court finds that the suit is for a mere declaration with no consequential relief, then it cannot call upon the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee. On the other hand, if it finds that though ostensibly the suit is one for a mere declaration, but some consequential relief is involved therein by necessary implication, then it must call upon the plaintiff to pay court-fee on ad valorem basis. I am tempted in this context to repeat what I said in Ramkishun Mahton v. Smt. Nero Devi, AIR 1965 Pat 486. This is what I said at page 488 of the report