BABURAO Vs. BALAJIRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellants put their signatures on a sale-deed. The document was registered under Section 74, Registration Act. The plaint states: Plaintiffs pray that a decree be passed declaring that the plaintiffs are proprietors of one anna four pies share of patti I of mouza Mohda and that the document registered on 20th October 1926 does not affect their title.

(2.) THE plaint bore a ten rupees stamp and the value of the relief was stated to be Rs.6,000. The defendant urged that the suit as framed is really one for declaration of title and cancellation of a sale deed and therefore Court-fees ought to be paid on Rs. 2,000 under Section 7 (4) (e) and (d), Court-fees Act. The plaintiffs in reply to this plea submitted that the consequential relief such as cancellation of the document was not necessary, but added that if the Court held otherwise they would amend the plaint, claim the relief and pay Court-fees. The learned Judge held that the claim was not properly valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction and that the proper value of the claim for the Court-fee and jurisdiction should be Rs.2,000. The plaintiffs refused to pay the additional Court-fee and the plaint was therefore rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (c), Civil P.C.

(3.) I cannot distinguish between a declaration that a document does not affect a person's title and an ad judgment that the document is void or voidable against that person. Now if a person sues under the provisions of Section 39, Specific Relief Act, he must be deemed to ask for the remedy given by that section, namely, that the Court should adjudge the document void and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. It does not appear that under Section 39 the Court can adjudge a document void without ordering it to be delivered up and cancelled, except in the contingency mentioned in Section 40. The relief claimed in the plaint was the relief which the Court could give under Section 39, Specific Relief Act. The whole tenor of the plaint is to this effect; para. 20 alleges that the sale-deed is void and does not affect the title of the plaintiffs and para. 19 states that the cause of action arose when the defendant attempted to make use of the deed.