Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Shivhare vs Ram Swaroop Yadav on 7 November, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19346
1 WP-7149-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 7149 of 2014
BALRAM SHIVHARE
Versus
RAM SWAROOP YADAV
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the orders dated 17.09.2014 and 14.10.2014 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-2 Bhitarwar in Civil Suit No.16-A/2014, whereby the learned Trial Court had held that since the suit property is a house, therefore, the valuation of the suit should be in accordance with that of the valuation of the house and accordingly, the Court fees is required to be paid. The said order was agitated by way of a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which was rejected, hence the present petition.
2. As per the facts of the case the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to house situated at Main Tiraha Bhitarwar Ward no.7 and had valued the suit for declaration purposes for Rs.1 lakh and had paid the Court fees of Rs.500/- and so far as relief of permanent injunction was concerned, the suit was valued for Rs.200/- and fixed Court fees of Rs.100/- was paid, thus, in all Court fees of Rs.600/- was Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 08-Nov-24 6:08:51 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19346 2 WP-7149-2014 paid. Learned Trial Court while observing the aforesaid anomaly held that for valuation of Rs.1 lakh the petitioner/plaintiff was required to pay Court fees @ of Rs.12% as provided under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court fees Act and, thus, directed the petitioner/plaintiff to file court fees of Rs.12,000/- in total and since Rs.500/- was already paid, therefore, it finally directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay remaining court fees of Rs.11,500/-.
3. The said order was sought to be recalled by the petitioner/plaintiff by moving an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, but the same was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
4. None for the respondents.
5. The legal position as is involved in the present case has been dealt with by Delhi Court in the case of Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta and Ors.
reported in 2010 SCC Online Del 506 , wherein while relying on the case of Hans Raj Kalra vs. Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors reported in ILR 1976 Delhi, it has been observed as under:
"10. In support of her submission another decision has been referred being Hans Raj Kalra vs. Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors reported in ILR 1976 Delhi, 745 as regards the issue of court fee payable on mere declaration and/or consequential relief. The court held as follows:
"(20) It is fairly well settled that it is not the form of the plaint or the manner in which the relief is worded in it, but the substance of it, which is determinative of its real nature and character and in determining whether a suit is a suit for a mere declaration or for a declaration with a consequential relief a Court must not be carried away by the form of the plaint but must look to the substance of it (1). It is equally well settled that the question whether the suit Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 08-Nov-24 6:08:51 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19346 3 WP-7149-2014 would be governed by Section 7(iv) (c) or Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act must be determined not on what relief the plaintiff should ask to be able to succeed but according to the relief actually claimed in the plaint (2). It is equally well settled that the question whether a suit comes within the terms of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or not will have no impact on the question of valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees but must be determined on the basis of what the plaintiff actually seeks and not on the basis of what he may be entitled to sue for (3). In case the suit is for a declaration implicate it would be necessary for the Court to consider whether a consequential relief is implicit in the declaration. If it is, the provisions of Section 7
(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act would be attracted (4). If on the whole and in substance a suit appears to ask for some relief other than or in addition to a mere declaration the suit must be held not to be one for a bare declaration even though the plaint may be cast in a declaratory form (5). It is, however, open to the Court, in considering the question, to take into account the maintainability or otherwise of a suit for a bare declaration (6). The consequential relief must be such that it will constitute further relief within the meaning of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act (7). It must be a relief to which the plaintiff would not be entitled unless a certain title was established and unless the plaintiff would necessarily be entitled to such relief on such title being established (8). A relief is consequential to a declaration if it follows on such a declaration and depends on it (9). What ensues or follows must have a necessary connection with the cause. Cause and consequence are co-relative terms, one implying the other. What the courts must, therefore, see is whether the relief, other than the declaratory decree, follows as a natural consequence from the declaration or in other words flows from it (10). But the mere fact that a certain relief flows from the right declared will not by its own force make it a consequential relief unless it is asked for as incidental to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 08-Nov-24 6:08:51 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19346 4 WP-7149-2014 declaration."
6. Further in Sujata Sharma (supra) the Delhi High Court has observed as under:
"15. As to what constitutes 'consequential relief', counsel for the defendants has referred to the observation in Mt. Zeb-ul-Nissa v. Din Mohammad, AIR 1941 Lahore 7 (FB) (6) which was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh vs. Rajinder Prasad reported in AIR 1973 SC 2384 (7). The said observation states as follows:
"The expression 'consequential relief' in Section 7 (iv) (c) means some relief, which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a 'substantial relief'."
16. 'Further relief' as mentioned in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 must arise from the cause of action on which the declaratory suit is based. However, the operation of Section 7 (iv)
(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is limited to cases where a consequential relief is claimed in addition to a declaratory relief. The section does not apply to all cases falling within the ambit of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as though every 'consequential relief' would be 'further relief', there would be 'further relief' which would not constitute 'consequential relief'. No relief is consequential unless it cannot be granted without a declaration.
17. It is settled law that a declaration with consequential relief falls within the meaning of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 and the plaintiff in such a case is required to value the suit for the purposes of court fee which is payable ad-valorem according to the value of the relief sought."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 08-Nov-24 6:08:51 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19346 5 WP-7149-2014
7. In view of the aforesaid preposition, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly observed that along with declaration, mandatory injunction has also been claimed with regard to restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property by himself or through any third party. Thus, from the very reliefs which has been claimed, the suit appears to ask for some relief other than for in addition to mere declaration and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is only with regard to bare declaration even though the plaint may be caste in a declaratory form.
8. From the relief of mandatory injunction which has been claimed it can be said that it would constitute further relief within meaning of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the relief of permanent/mandatory injunction would not be granted unless title is established and unless the plaintiff would necessarily be entitled for such relief on such title being established, therefore, relief of permanent injunction is consequential to the declaration as it follows the declaration and depends on it. As it is a settled preposition of law that cause and consequence are corelative terms one implying the other, thus, the Court is required to see as to whether the relief other than the declaratory decree follows as a natural consequence from the declaration or in other words flows from it.
9. In the light of the aforesaid fact the directions as issued by the learned Trial Court for paying ad valorem court fees on the suit valuation as the case of the petitioner is covered under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court fees Act.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 08-Nov-24 6:08:51 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19346 6 WP-7149-2014
10. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 04.03.2015 is hereby vacated. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.
11. Let copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 08-Nov-24 6:08:51 PM