SUKHLAL Vs. DEVILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which we are called upon to decide at this stage is one of court-fee. We give below a few facts out of which the present question has arisen.

(2.) THE appellants were defendants in the trial court. THE plaintiffs respondents are sons of the respondent Bakhtawarlal who was impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit. THE plaintiff's case was that their father Bakhtawarlal and the plaintiffs were members of a joint Hindu family, and that Bakhtawarlal sold certain property to defendants No. 1 to 4, namely, Sukhlal, Hukmichand, Kastoorchand and Gahrilal, by a sale-deed dated 10th June, 1944, for a sum of Rs. 800/- and that the said property was ancestral property of the family and had been sold to the vendees above-named without the consent of the plaintiffs and without any family necessity. THE plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that the sale-deed executed by Bakhtawarlal in favour of the vendees be cancelled. THE plaintiffs valued their suit at Rs. 6,000/- for purposes of jurisdiction. THEy alleged that they were in possession of the property in question and so paid a court-fee of Rs. 7/- only. THE court-fee paid in the trial court was correct according to the Marwar Court-fees Act, Svt. 1988. THE learned Civil Judge who tried the suit granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs that the sale-deed dated the 10th June, 1944, was null and left the parties to bear their own costs. Defendants Sukhlal, Hukmichand and others filed the first appeal on 7. 12. 1951 against the judgment and decree of the trial court. THEy have paid a fixed court-fee stamp of Rs. 10/- only on the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the court-fee paid by the appellants was insufficient.