SRI KRISHNA CHANDRA Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to the Full. Bench for an answer: "Whether the court-fee of Rs. 10 paid by the plaintiff on the plaint as filed by him was sufficient, and it not, what would be the proper court-fee payable."

(2.) The plaintiff in this case was a minor suing through a guardian and his case was that in a previous suit brought for the partition of a joint Hindu family property he was not effectively represented by his guardian who was very negligent and careless and did not properly look after his case. The suit was referred to arbitration which resulted in an award which was incorporated in the decree of the Court, The plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs specifically: (a) It may be held that Govind Prasad, defendant 3 party, did not in any way look after the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of suit No. 65 of 1927, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ghazipur, and that he was guilty of gross negligence on account of which the plaintiff was greatly deprived of his rights, and it may be declared that the decree No. 65 of 1927 is not in any way binding upon the plaintiff and is altogether void and ineffectual, (b) In addition to relief (a) any other relief which may, in the opinion of the Court, be just, may also be granted to the plaintiff against the defendants, together with the costs of this suit.

(3.) He valued the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 45,308 but paid a Court fee of Rs. 10 for the declaration that the decree is null and void. No separate valuation was given for the reliefs claimed. An attempt to supply it by way of amendment proved infructuous. The question that arose before the Division Bench was whether the payment of Rs. 10 as Court fee, treating the relief claimed as one for obtaining a mere declaratory decree, was sufficient or whether the plaintiff was claiming something more, i.e., a substantial relief for which an ad valorem Court fee should be charged. Recently a Bench of five Judges has had to consider some provisions of the Court-fees Act in Kalu Ram V/s. Babu Lal . In that case the plaintiff had asked for reliefs for adjudging a certain mortgage deed void and ineffectual and for its cancellation and also for the cancellation of a compromise decree which resulted in a preliminary decree. The Full Bench pointed out that the reliefs claimed were something more than a mere declaratory decree and that the payment of Rs. 10 was not sufficient.