Patna High Court
Raja Dhakeswar Prasad Singh vs Jioo Choudhry on 8 May, 1918
Equivalent citations: 46IND. CAS.385, AIR 1918 PATNA 487
ORDER Roe, J.
1. I see no reason to depart from my views expressed as Taxing Judge. It is clear from a perusal of the plaint that the plaintiff was of opinion that he could not succeed in his suit without a declaration that the revenue sale was invalid by reason of fraud and irregularity in its conduct, The declaratory relief sought was, therefore, a necessary part of the suit. It is clear also that consequential relief was asked for in the shape either of confirmation or restoration to possession, The Court-fee payable was ad valorem on the property as valued for the purposes of jurisdiction. It is contended, however, that inasmuch as the Mokarrari of the plaintiff extended to only half of the properties sold, the Court-fee payable would be upon that half only. That is not a view which I can accept. The relief asked for was that the whole sale should be set aside and the estate was valued at Rs. 20,000. It is clear that the plaintiff himself was of opinion that the whole value of the suit was Rs. 20,000. If that statement of value was not made for the purposes of jurisdiction the statement was without meaning. I am of opinion that the Registrar's views upon the Court-fees payable was correct and I would direct that the appeal be stayed under Section 10, Clause (2), until the deficit Court-fee on the plaint has been paid on the plaint and if it is not paid within fourteen days the appeal will stand dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs to Government in this application, hearing fee two gold mohurs.
Jwala Prasad, J.
2. I agree. This is a suit for declaration that the revenue sale is invalid and for confirmation or restoration of possession. On reading the reliefs in the plaint it is obvious that it comes clearly under Section 7, Clause (4)(c) of the Court Fees Act, where under the plaintiff is to pay ad valorem Court-fee as he has prayed for a declaration and for consequential relief. I have read the decision of my learned brother as Taxing Judge and I entirely agree with him. In a similar case, Mohamed Takibuddin Baddi v. Collector of the District of the 24 Parganas 6 C.W.N. 157, where the plaintiff prayed to set aside a revenue sale and for possession, it was held that the suit was to obtain a declaratory decree and for consequential relief. The principle of the decision in the case of Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasamy Pillai 28 Ind. Cas. 79 : 38 M. 922 : 28 M.L.J. 118 : (1915) M.W.N. 118 : 17 M.L.T. 154 can well apply to this case, though that was a suit for declaration that a mortgage decree is not binding on the plaintiff and for an injunction staying defendants from executing the sale. It was held that the suit came within Section 7, Clause (4)(c). The learned Vakil for the plaintiff has failed to distinguish the principle of that decision.
3. The present suit was valued at Rs. 20,000 and so was the appeal, as would appear from the memorandum valued at Rs. 20,000. The plaintiff should, therefore, pay ad valorem Court-fee on that amount.