HAREKRISHNA DAS Vs. SUNAMANI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision brought by the plaintiffs directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a court-fee matter. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this application arises alleging that they were the reversioners of a certain last male owner and they claimed a declaration that-the widow of the last male owner had only a limited interest of a Hindu widow in the inheritance and that alienations made by her without legal necessity would not enure beyond her lifetime and would not be binding upon the reversionary body. During the course of the proceedings the plaintiffs asked for an interim injunction to-restrain the widow from making further alienations and the learned Subordinate Judge acceded to their application and granted an ad interim injunction. The adequacy of the court-fee paid, namely Rs. 15, was raised and eventually the learned Judge ordered that the plaintiffs should pay a court-fee calculated on an ad valorem basis. Against that order the plaintiffs have applied in revision to this Court.

(2.) It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that this is not a case where there was a claim for a declaration and consequential relief and consequently court-fee on an ad valorem basis cannot be charged. On perusal of the plaint it is clear that the plain, tiffs merely asked for a declaration that defendant 1 had only a life estate in her inheritance and that certain alienations would not be binding upon the reversionary body. That prayer as it stands is one purely for a declaration. There does not follow a second prayer in these terms: That the suit may he decreed with costs and the plaintiffs may be allowed to any other relief to which they are entitled.

(3.) This is the usual omnibus relief clause which appears in practically every plaint in this country and we cannot construe a plaint as being a plaint for a declaration and consequential relief merely because this omnibus relief clause appears. The learned Judge however came to the conclusion that as the plaintiffs had applied and had obtained an ad interim injunction the suit was clearly a suit for a declaration and consequential relief. It has been argued on behalf of the opposite party that the learned Judge's view is supported by authority of this Court and of the Calcutta High Court. In Gangadhar Misra V/s. Devendrabala Dasi AIR (1926) Pat 249, Jwala Prasad J. sitting singly held on somewhat similar facts that the suit was a suit for a declaration and consequential relief and accordingly he directed that an ad valorem court-fee was payable. Jwala Prasad J. in the main based his decision upon the case in Deokali Koer V/s. Kedar Nath (1912) 39 Cal 704, but in my view the Calcutta case does not support the view taken by Jwala Prasad J. In the Calcutta case the learned Chief Justice in delivering judgment makes it clear that in his view the suit was not a suit for a declaration.