DAROGA GOBIND RAO Vs. MOHAR GOBIND RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose plaint was rejected on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped with proper court, fee. In the plaint the plaintiffs prayed for the following relief: It may be declared under the decree that the final decree No. 129 of 1930 dated 28 November 1931 in which preliminary decree, dated 30 March 1931 is merged is altogether ineffectual and null and void.

(2.) In the Court below an objection was taken by the principal contesting defendant that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs was inadequate, and the Court below thought it proper to decide the question of court-fees first. By an order dated 11 July 1934 that Court held that the plaintiffs ought to pay ad valorem court-fee and time was given to the plaintiffs to pay the same. On 23 July 1934 the plaintiffs applied for a reconsideration of the order, but on 25 July 1934 the Court said that there was "no reason to review and reconsider its former views," but time was extended for payment of the full court-fee up to 31 July 1934. The court-fee not having been paid within the extended time, the plaint was rejected with costs to the opposite party on 31 July 1934, and it is against this latter order that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs, appellants that the court-fee of Rs. 15 as paid by them was sufficient inasmuch as their suit was a pure and simple suit for a declaratory decree and strong reliance is placed on the Pull Bench case in Sri Krishna Chandra V/s. Mahabir Prasad and another Pull Bench case of this Court in Bishan Sarup V/s. Musa Mal , Learned Counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the cases in Mohammad Ismail V/s. Liyaqat Husain , Brij Gopal V/s. Suraj Karan , Lakshmi Narain Rai V/s. Dip Narain Rai and Abdul Samad Khan V/s. Anjuman Islamia We shall consider these cases in detail and we shall also consider the cases cited by learned Counsel for the respondent. There can be no doubt that under Section 6, Court-fees Act it is the duty of the Court before which any document is filed to see whether the document is sufficiently stamped or not, and under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C., the Court shall reject a plaint if the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped. There can also be no doubt that the Courts have ample power to look into the allegations of the plaint in order to find out the real nature of the relief which is claimed, and the mere fact that the relief is clothed in the garb of a declaratory decree will not make the relief claimed a declaratory relief only, if the averments in the plaint show the contrary. This was held in the Pull Bench case in Kalu Ram V/s. Babu lal This was a Pull Bench case of five Judges, and King J. who delivered the principal judg. ment in the case observed: The Court has to see what is the nature of the suit and of the reliefs claimed, having regard to the provisions of Section 7, Court-fees Act. If a substantive relief is claimed, though clothed in the garb of a declaratory decree with a consequential relief, the Court is entitled to see what is the real nature of the relief and if satisfied that it is not a mere consequential relief but a substantive relief, it can demand the proper court-fee on that relief irrespective of the arbitrary valuation put by the plaintiff in the plaint on the ostensible consequential relief. Suppose a plaintiff asks for a declaration that the defendant is liable to pay him money due under a certain bond and also asks for recovery of that amount, or suppose that he asks for a declaration that he is the owner of certain property and is entitled to its possession and asks for recovery of its possession; surely the relief for the recovery of money or for the recovery of possession cannot be treated as a mere consequential relief which can be arbitrarily valued at any low figure and court-fees paid on that arbitrary valuation only....