RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, directed the plaintiff to comply with the objections raised by he office by valuing the suit and paying the court-fee under section 24 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. Against that order, this revision petition has been filed.

( 2 ) THE main allegations in the plaint are that one Suguna Bai, the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant, being the eldest member of the family, has opened a locker in the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , Siddiamber Bazar Branch, Hyderabad, which is impleaded as the second defendant in the suit, the locker No. being 208. The said Suguna Bai side leaving behind the plaintiff and the first defendant and they are the sole heirs of Sugana Bai. When the plaintiff and the first defendant approached the bank to operate the locker, the bank asked them to get a succession certificate from the competent court and, therefore, that filed the present suit for a declaration that they are entitled to operate the locker.

( 3 ) THE main point that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the court below was justified in directing the plaintiff to value the suit under section 24 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to operate the bank s locker that stood in the name of his mother, Suguna Bai. Under section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a succession certificate can be granted only in respect of debts and securities and not for any other kind of property. A succession certificate cannot be granted in respect of ornaments pledged by a deceased with a bank by way of security for the debt which the bank had advanced. It is not a debt due from the bank. Also, it cannot be granted in respect of ornaments kept in a deposit locker in a bank.

( 5 ) IT is well-settled that, in order to determine the proper court-fee payable on a plaint in a particular case, the true principle is that the plaint as a whole should be looked at and that it is the substance of the plaint and not its ostensible form which really matters. Further, nothing should be imported into the plaint which it really does not contain either actually or by necessary implication. Thus, in construcing the plaint, the court must take the plaint as it is and not as it ought to have been (vide Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal. AIR 1932 All 485 ).

( 6 ) IN this case, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration to allow the first plaintiff to operate the locker which stood in the name of their mother. By virtue of the declaration, the plaintiff wan to operate the locker and also want to take possession and control of the articles that were kept in the locker. Though the relief prayed for appears only for a declaration but it is not a case of a declaration simpliciter to allow plaintiff No. 1 to operate the locker.

( 7 ) THE averments in the plaint show that late Suguna Bai, as head of the family, took the locker and the properties belonging to the point family. When the property belongs to the joint family and, in the absence of any will executed by Smt. Sugana Bai to the extent of the contends of the locker, the only remedy that is available for the plaintiff is to file a suit for partition. This is not a case filed for partition, but it is filed for a declaration. Therefore, the lower court has rightly pointed out that court-fee was payable as per section 24 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act.

( 8 ) IN State Bank of India v. Netai Ch. Porel, AIR 1982 Cal 92, it is observed as follows (at page 94) :"the bank was merely a custodian of the same. In ordinary parlance, `debt means a sum certain due from one person called the debtor to another called the creditor. In Stroud s Judicial Dictionary a debt is defined as a sum payable in respect of a liquidated money demand recoverable by action

Click Here to Read the rest of this document