Amar Kaur Etc. v. Parkash Chand Etc.

D.K. Mahajan, J. - This petition for revision is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Jullundur, holding that the suit had to be valued under Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the proper provision under which the suit is to be valued is Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Act. The matter is not resintegra and is concluded by two decisions of this Court in Jagat Singh v. Avtar Singh, 1970 Cur. L.J. 80, and Man Singh v. Shiv Karna, Civil Revision No. 749 of 1970 decided on 8-1-1971. In the latter case, the facts were identical. 3. Mr. G.R. Majitia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to Sheel Kumar v. Aditya Narain, 1964 PLR 916, for his contention that the suit in fact is for declaration and cancellation that the suit in fact is for by way of consequential relief. This contention is wholly devoid of force. I have gone through the plaint and in unmistakable terms it states that the suit is for cancellation of the gift-deed and as a consequential relief injunction is prayed for. Therefore, when a suit is for cancellation of instrument with a consequential relief for injection, it will not fall within the ambit of Section 7(iv)(c) or even Section 7(v). The only residuary provision, is Article Schedule 1, and it will come into play, and it is on that basis that the Judge proceeded to deal with the case. 4. Mr. Majithia then placed his reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others, 1973 P.L.J. 686. That was a case where a declaratory suit had been filed and a claim was made for setting aside the decree passed against the father, the suit having been filed by the son. In this case, their Lordships held that the case was covered by Section 7(iv)(c) because the suit was for a declaration with a consequential relief. This decision does not held the learned counsel. 5. The learned counsel then drew my attention to Kahan Singh v. Gurdev Singh, 1966 PLR 689. This decision proceeds on the basis that the provisions of the Section 7(iv)(c) apply. As I have already held, the suit as framed does not fall under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. This decision will be of no avail to the learned counsel . 6. Mr. Majithia then contended that in the gift-deed the value of the land was stated to be Rs. 9,000/-. If the matter had stood at that, the learned counsel would be right and the decision of the Court below that the market value was Rs. 60,000/- may not have been correct. However, in the present case, in the plaint a clear allegation was made that the present case, in the plaint a clear allegation was made that the market-value of property was more than Rs. 60,000/-/ Not only that, in replication a specific stand was again taken that the value of the property was Rs. 60,000/-. It is, therefore, not open to the plaintiff now to turn round and say that the market value of the property is Rs. 9,000/- and not Rs. 60,000/-. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioner is given three month's time to make good the deficiency in Court-fee failing which the Judge will proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 21st December, 1973. Petition dismissed.