Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8] Mr. Patwardhan further submitted that this was not a suit for declaration that two Sale Deeds are void, because, such declaration was not at all necessary for the purpose of Plaintiffs' case. The Plaintiffs having consciously decided to seek only prayer for declaration of title to the suit property, it was not open to accept any submission that some relief must be deemed to have been sought for by the Plaintiffs and on the said basis, to require the Plaintiffs to value the suit and pay additional court fees. If, the Civil Judge were to come to the conclusion that the reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiffs are incomplete or cannot be granted in the form in which they have been applied for, the suit may be dismissed on merits. However, that by itself, is not a ground to allege either under-valuation or some deficiency in the payment of court-fees.

15] In the present case, there is no relief seeking declaration that the two Sale Deeds are void. The question which therefore arises is whether the suit, in substance, is nothing but a suit seeking declaration that the two Sale Deeds are void, notwithstanding the absence of specific prayer in this regard. Mr. Dani has also urged that in the absence of any relief of declaration that the two Sale Deeds are void, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain any other reliefs as may have been prayed for in the suit.

19] In this case however, the Plaintiffs are quite clear in the structure of their plaint, in that, they make reference to the two Sale Deeds in question, but do not seek any declaration that the same are null and void.

It is the specific case of the Plaintiffs, as articulated by their counsel Mr. Patwardhan that they do not need any declaration that the two Sale Deeds are void and the Plaintiffs would be satisfied with the declaration that they Chandka 12 of 19 skc 13 JUDG- WP-11432-14.doc are the absolute owners in respect of the suit property. In fact, Mr. Patwardhan placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Birbal & Ors.5, to contend that when a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non est in the eyes of law, as it would be a nullity. This is hardly the occasion to decide upon the question as to whether a structure of the suit as framed is proper or not. This is also not the occasion for deciding whether the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint are complete in themselves or whether the reliefs as prayed for can never be granted by the Civil Courts in the absence of specific prayer seeking declaration that the two Sale Deeds are null and void. If ultimately, the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the basic structure of the suit is defective, or that the reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted or that there is omission to seek some important relief, without which no other relief as prayed for can be granted, the same might result in dismissal of the suit.

However, that by itself is no ground to hold that the suit, in substance, is one seeking declaration that the two Sale Deeds are void. This is a case where consciously, the Plaintiffs have chosen not to seek declaration that the two Sale Deeds are null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are very clearly prepared to face the consequences of their conscious decision. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that this is a case of clever drafting 5 (2006) 5 SCC 353 Chandka 13 of 19 skc 14 JUDG- WP-11432-14.doc or astute pleadings, only for the purposes of evading payment of court fee or conferring jurisdiction upon a court, which it otherwise may not possess.