LAWS(PVC)-1947-12-90

SAHUL HAMEED ROWTHER Vs. KCPMOHIDEEN PICHAI

Decided On December 11, 1947
SAHUL HAMEED ROWTHER Appellant
V/S
KCPMOHIDEEN PICHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, alleging that a sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner was sham and nominal, prayed for a declaration to that effect and for an injunction restraining the defendant (petitioner) from interfering with his possession; in the alternative, in case the Court should find that his possession had been disturbed, he prayed for possession. He paid Court-fee under Section 7 (v)(b), at ten times the kist, which was higher than the Court-fee payable on the alternative relief for declaration and injunction under Section 7 (iv)(c). The District Munsiff before whom the suit was filed held that the suit should have been valued and Court-fee paid according to Section 7 (iv-A), since by implication the plaintiff was asking for cancellation of the sale deed. He found that the value of the suit according to Section 7 (iv-A) was Rs. 6000, which was beyond his jurisdiction. So he returned the plaint for presentation to the pro-per Court. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal to the District Judge, who rever-sed the order of the District Munsiff and found that the suit was properly valued and that the proper Court-fee had been paid. He therefore directed the District Munsiff to again take the plaint on file and dispose of the suit according to law.

(2.) The short point that arises in this Civil revision petition filed by the defendant is whether in view of the plaintiff's allegation that the sale was sham and nominal, it was necessary for the plaintiff to pray for cancellation of the deed and to value his. suit for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fee under Section 7 (iv-A).

(3.) We have been referred to many cases, of which Swaminatha Iyer V/s. Rukmani Ammal A.I.R. 1920 Mad. 88(1), arid Petherperumal Chetti V/s. Muniandi Servai (1908) 18 M.L.J. 277 : L.R. 35 I.A. 98 : I.L.R. 35 Cal. 551 (P.C.), may be cited as examples, in which it has been held that when a transaction is sham and nominal there is no need to have the transaction formally Set aside, and that it can be ignored.