- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishna Devi And Another v. Jaswant Singh .
Summary of Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision petition challenges an order dated 23.7.2004 of the learned trial Court directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court-fee in respect of the sale consideration of the sale-deed (Rs. 75,000/-). The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration challenging an order passed by the learned Registrar, Hoshiarpur and the sale-deed dated 30.5.1994. The plaint also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs and for getting the sale registered. The trial Court held that because the sale-deed was being challenged, the plaintiffs must pay ad valorem Court-fee. The plaintiffs sought revision of that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether ad valorem Court-fee is required to be paid when a suit challenges a sale-deed but does not claim possession as a consequential relief.
- Whether the question of applicable Court-fee must be determined solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments (learned counsel for the plaintiffs)
- The plaintiffs did not seek consequential relief for possession in their suit for declaration; therefore the Full Bench decision in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur (1982 P.L.R. 127) would not apply.
- Only when possession is claimed as a consequential relief is ad valorem Court-fee required under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act.
- Since the plaintiffs are in possession, no ad valorem Court-fee is required to be affixed.
Respondent's Arguments (learned counsel for the defendant)
- Reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court to contend that the plaintiffs, being parties to the sale-deed, are required to affix ad valorem Court-fee.
- Submission that the defendant is in possession of the suit land and therefore a suit for declaration simplicitor is not maintainable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 Punjab Law Reporter 127 | Full Bench authority relied upon in relation to the requirement of ad valorem Court-fee (counsel described the relevant proposition as applying where possession is claimed as a consequential relief under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act). | The Court held that the principle laid down by the Full Bench in that authority could not be extended to the present case because, on the averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs had not asked for consequential relief of possession; accordingly the trial Court's application of that principle was set aside. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court set out the guiding rule that, for determining the question of Court-fee, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. Applying that rule to the present plaint, the Court observed that the plaintiffs had not sought consequential relief of possession. Because the Full Bench principle relied upon by the parties was concerned with situations involving consequential claims to possession (as framed by counsel and as reflected in the cited authority), that principle could not be extended to the facts of this case where no such consequential relief was pleaded. On that basis the Court concluded that the trial Court's direction requiring payment of ad valorem Court-fee was incorrect.
Holding and Implications
Revision petition allowed; the impugned order dated 23.7.2004 directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court-fee is set aside.
Implications: The direct effect is that the plaintiffs are not required (pursuant to the impugned order) to pay ad valorem Court-fee in respect of the sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. The opinion confines its decision to the application of existing principles to the pleadings in this case; it does not purport to lay down a broader or new precedent beyond declining to extend the cited Full Bench principle to the facts before it.
Hemant Gupta, J.:— The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 23.7.2004, whereby the plaintiffs were directed to pay ad valorem Court fee in respect of the sale consideration of the sale-deed i.e Rs. 75,000/-.
2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration challenging the order passed by the learned Registrar, Hoshiarpur as well as the sale-deed dated 30.5.1994 and also claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering inthe possession of the plaintiff and for getting the sale registered.
3. The learned trial Court found that since the challenge is to the sale-deed, therefore, the plaintiffs must pay the ad valorem Court-fee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has not sought consequential relief for possession in a suit for declaration and, therefore, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 Punjab Law Reporter 127 would not be applicable. It is contended that only when possession is claimed as a consequential relief, the ad valorem Court-fee is required to be paid as contemplated under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. Since, the plaintiff is in possession, therefore, no ad valorem Court-fee is required to be affixed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Full Bench Judgement of this Court, to contend Page: 564that the plaintiffs are a party to the sale-deed and, therefore, the plaintiffs are required to affix ad valorem Court-fee. It is also contended that the defendant is in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the suit for declaration simplicitor is not maintainable.
6. It is well settled that for the purposes of determining the question of Court-fee, the averments made in the plaint alone are required to be considered. In view of the averments made in the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiffs have not asked for consequential relief of possession, therefore, the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid authority, cannot be extended to the facts of the present case.
7. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the learned trial Court directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem. Court-fee is set aside.
Petition allowed.
Alert