RAMBHAROSA LAL Vs. BINDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of a court-fee matter. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit for declaration that a certain sale deed purported to have been executed by him on 10-10-1952, was a forged and fabricated document and that it did not pass any title to the defendants and was not binding on the plaintiff. The latter two reliefs, however, were deleted by way of amendment of the plaint. Thus, the only relief sought for in the plaint is that a declaration should be made in favour of the plaintiff that the sale deed in question was a forged and fraudulent document. The case of the plaintiff as appears from the various averments made in the plaint is that on 10-10-1950, the defendants forcibly took the plaintiff's thumb impression on several blank stamp, cartridge and ordinary papers and manufactured a sale deed on those papers after having forged his signature. As such, the plaintiff wanted to make out a case that' he was not a party to the document and the signatures on the sale deed purporting to be of the plaintiff were rank forgery. He, therefore, wanted a simple declaration that the sale deed was a forged and fraudulent document inasmuch as it was not executed by him. No. doubt, in the plaint, he has made certain averments as regards the non-passing of the consideration and possession of the land alleged to have been conveyed by the said sale deed. But those averments have been made only for the purpose of giving further support to his case that he" was not an executant of the sale deed. He, therefore, paid court-fee for a declaratory suit as provided by Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II, Court-fees Act. For the purpose of jurisdiction, however, the suit was valued at Rs. 10,000. An objection was taken by the defendants about the sufficiency of the court-fee. The learned Subordinate Judge relying on a Pull Bench decision of this Court in -- 'Mt. Rupia v. Bhatu Mahton', AIR 1944 Pat 17 (FB) (A), held that ad valorem court-fee should have been paid. He, therefore, directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fee by a certain date failing which the suit was to be dismissed for non-compliance of the court's order. Against this order the plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) In the Full Bench case of this Court referred to above, the plaintiff was a party to the deed in question as regards which a declaration was sought for on his behalf that it was not binding on him inasmuch as it was got executed by him fraudulently. It was held in that case that, though only a declaration was sought for, by implication, a consequential relief was prayed for having the document cancelled, inasmuch as the plaintiff being a party to the document could avoid it as being fraudulent by institution of a proper suit and it was, therefore, necessary that a decree avoiding the effect of the deed should be passed in favour of the plaintiff. That was a case of voidable document as opposed to void document where the plaintiff alleges that he was not a party at all to the document. If a plaintiff comes with a case that he never executed a document and his signature on it was forged, it is not necessary for him to get a consequential relief to have the document cancelled, because so (far as he is concerned, the document does not stand at all. Reference was made in the above Full Bench decision of this Court to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in -- 'Karam Khan v. Daryai Singh', 5 All 331 (FB) (B), in which it was held that a suit for the cancellation of an instrument executed by a third party in respect of property, to which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled, was one for a declaratory decree of the kind mentioned in Section 3 9, Specific Relief Act and not seeking any consequential relief, and, therefore, not falling under Section 7 ( iv) (c), Court-fees Act. With regard to that case their Lordships observed that it may be that the actual decision in that case was right inasmuch as the plaintiff would not be bound by a document to which he was not a party, and, therefore, the suit may have been treated as merely for the declaration of the plaintiff's title to the property sought to be dealt with by the deed in question. In a Bench decision of this Court in --'Ramautar Sao v. Ram Gobind Sao', AIR 1942 Pat 60 (C), it was held that caution must be observed so as not to import Into the plaint anything which it does not really contain, either actually or by necessary implication and that in construing a plaint the court must take it as it is, not as it thinks it ought to have been. A relief not asked for cannot be imported so as to charge court-fee thereon. It was further held that, "although a suit for avoiding an instrument even if there be no prayer for cancellation carried with it by necessary implication a prayer for setting it aside, yet a clear distinction must be drawn between cases where it is necessary for the plaintiff to get the document declared void and cancelled before he can get relief, and cases where the plaintiff can obtain his relief without any such declaration and cancellation upon a mere finding that the document does not affect him, that is to say, the Court must distinguish between voidable documents and wholly void documents, and between declarations in the true sense and declarations so called which are merely the findings of fact necessary to give the plaintiff relief. The decision in this case was approved by the above Full Bench of this Court. Sinha J. (as he then was) who gave the leading judgment of the Full Bench fully associated with the ob-servations, made by their Lordships in AIR 1942 Pat 60 (C), which are to the following effect:

(3.) In a suit of this nature the question in each is one of construction of the plaint and it is to be found out as to what are the reliefs which the plaintiff is claiming. In the present case, as already observed, the plaintiff averred that he was not a party to the execution of the document and his signature was forged on blank stamp and cartridge papers which bore his thumb impression. Mr. Jaleshwar Prasad appearing for the petitioner has contended that he takes the risk of the suit being dismissed if on the finding of the court below he is held to be entitled to other reliefs apart from the declaration sought for. His submission is that it would be enough for the petitioner if he gets a declaration that the document is a forged document, I fully agree with this contention, and on reading the plaint to me also it appears that the plaintiff can succeed in the suit if it is established that the signature on the sale deed was not of the plaintiff and that it was a forgery. The plaintiff, however, will not be entitled to get any relief on the ground of non-passing of consideration or possession, though he may be entitled to place before the Court even those materials in support of his claim that he was not a party to the execution at all.