Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Resisting the aforesaid submission, it is contended by Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for some of the non-applicants that the plaintiffs in the relief clause have prayed for declaration of the subsequent sale deeds as null and void and hence, they are required to pay the ad valorem Court Fee. It is his submission that though the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale-deeds but as they are claiming their right on the basis of sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 they are liable to pay the ad valorem Court Fee. It is his further submission that the plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs. 60,000/- and, therefore, they are also liable to pay ad valorem Court Fee. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Kapoori Bai v. Bhagwan Singh, 2000 (I) MPWN Note 65 and Raj Kaur w/o Garumukh Singh Randhawa v. M/s Kinetic Gallery and Anr., 2000 (2) MPLJ 72.

"11. Whether the Court Fees is required to be paid under Section 7(iv)(c) or Article 17 (iii) Schedule II, the Court has to consider whether the person was a party actual or constructive to the deed or the decree. If the Court comes to the conclusion that he was not, a declaration would be sufficient. The Court may also take into consideration that whether the suit is under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and if it comes to the conclusion that it is so, then the Court Fees is to be paid under Article 17 (iii) and not under Section 7(iv)(c). If the Court comes to the conclusion that it is necessary for the plaintiffs to have a decree or document set aside or declared as void, in such a case he has to pay the ad-valorem Court fees, but if the Court comes to the conclusion that without avoiding those documents or without even a declaration, an effective decree can be granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the other party for giving effect to the deed or decree, then in such a case Section 7(iv)(c) would not be applicable, and the Court Fees paid under Article 17 (iii) shall be sufficient. The Court may also consider whether the plaintiff is seeking the relief that the document is nullity or void-ab-initio. If he proves to the satisfaction of the Court, even prima facie in the plaint allegations that the document does not bind him or he was not a party then in such a case Section 7(iv)(c) would be applicable."
(quoted from the placitum)

7. The present factual matrix has to be scrutinised keeping the aforesaid pronouncement of law in the field. On a reading of the plaint in entirety it is plain as noon day that the plaintiff has made a prayer for declaration of his right, title and interest on the basis of sale deed which was executed by defendant No. 1 in his favour. The essence of the averments is that the defendant No. 1 has no saleable interest if he had sold the property to the plaintiff. Thus it is obvious that the plaintiffs are not claiming through the defendant No. 1 According to them the title of defendant No. 1 got extinguished after he executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 would not bind the plaintiffs as they could not be either a party or privy to subsequent sale deed as per the averments made in the plaint. In view of this factual backdrop the suit of the plaintiffs can be categorised as one for declaration which requires payment of fixed court fee under Schedule II Article 17 (iii) of the Court Fees Act. This is because the relief sought is an independent relief and not connected with the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, the concept of consequential relief with the meaning of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act is not attracted. On a close scrutiny of the plaint it is apparent that the plaintiffs have claimed independent relief of declaration and in the case of independent relief of declaration the suit is governed by Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act read with Section 3 there of. It cannot be disputed that the plaintiffs were bound to value the suit land for the purpose of jurisdiction in accordance with its market value and they have so done.

The question that falls for consideration whether the Trial court is justified in directing the plaintiffs to pay the court fee on Rs. 60,000/- for the relief of permanent injunction which is covered under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act. In a relief of permanent injunction the plaintiffs are permitted to quote their own valuation and the Court ordinarily does not interfere with the valuation put forth by the plaintiffs unless it is absurd or outrageously low or high. In the case at hand the relief of permanent injunction is valued at Rs. 300/- though the market value of the land is 60,000/- in as much as the plaintiffs have claimed that they are owners of the suit land in view of the execution of sale deed by defendant No. 1 in their favour. They also further claimed that they were placed in possession of the suit land. The subsequent sale deed merely cast a cloud on their title. The property in question has a market value but the normal rule of valuation of relief as per market value of the property would not apply to this case. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and they seek a declaration that subsequent sale deed is null and void as it casts a cloud in the enjoyment of the rights of the plaintiffs. There is further apprehension that taking shelter of the second sale deed the defendants may interfere in their possession. Keeping in view the wordings of the relief Clause it becomes luminously clear that plaintiffs want a permanent injunction of such nature which is not relevant to the market value of the land. The relief of permanent injunction as put forth by the plaintiffs can be recorded as incapable of valuation in terms of money. The relief sought for does not have the same money value as the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Court to accept the value put by the plaintiffs as the Court cannot be in a position to say that the value of relief of permanent injunction which is to value at Rs. 300/- is palpably or outrageously low.