Proper valuation of relief and the consequences of deliberate undervaluation under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suite Valuation Act, 1958.

( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. . Is preferred by the plaintiffs against the finding recorded on 30-10-1987 by the Addl. Civil Judge, Chikodi, in o. S. No. 18 of 1985 on Issue No. I in the negative. Issue no. 1 reads thus: "whether the court fee paid is proper?

( 2 ) THE trial Court has held that the court fee paid is not proper and the plaintiffs have to pay court fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Karnataka court Fees and Suite Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Accordingly, the trial Court has directed the petitioners to pay a deficit court fee of Rs. 3561/ -.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs-petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:" (A) Declaring that the decree passed in o. S. No. 125/81 on. 17-2- 1982 in favour of the defendant-1 against the plaintiff in this Court is illegal, null and void, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff: (B) Consequently restraining the defendant-1 and persons on its behalf by perpetual injunction from executing the impugned decree passed in O. S. No. 125/1981 against the plaintiff and recovering any amount from the plaintiff on the basis of the said void decree. "

( 4 ) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the plaintiffs - petitioners, the reliefs sought for in the plaint fall under Section 24 (d) of the act and the matter is covered by the several decisions of this Court in SMT. SUBBAMMA and OTHERS v MUNIYAMMA AND another (CRP 4002/81 dated 20-2-1985); basavannappa v STATE OF MYSORE (1970 (2) Mys. LJ. P. 10); H. N. PALIEGAR v k. SRINIVASA AND ANOTHER (1968 (1) mys. LJ. 198); SYED VAJEEHUNNISA begum and OTHERS v THE MYSORE state BOARD OF WAKFS AND OTHERS (1969 (2) Mys. LJ. 344) AND NARAYANA nagesh GUNAJI v MUNICIPAL CORPORATION of GREATER BOMBAY AND another 1982 (2) Kar. LJP. 522 ).

( 5 ) FROM the averments made in the plaint and the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs, it is clear that the first defendant herein has obtained a decree against the plaintiffs- petitioners in O. S. No. 125/81 on 17-2-1982 from the Court of Civil Judge, Chikodi, for a sum of Rs. 29,880/ -. It is that decree which the plaintiffs -petitioners are trying to get rid of through the suit in question. The decree which the plaintiffs/ petitioners want the court to declare it as null and void, is admittedly a money decree and it is passed for a sum of Rs. 29,880/ -. It is neither possible to accept nor to hold it as bonafide and reasonable the assertion of the plaintiffs- petitioners that they are not in a position to value the reliefs sought for in the suit, therefore they are entitled to value the reliefs sought for in the suit according to their own whims and fancies at Rs. 1000/ -. The plaintiffs under the garb of seeking a declaration are virtually seeking the relief of cancellation of the decree obtained against them. The relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiffs that the decree passed in O. S. 125/81 dated 17-2-1982 by the Court of the civil Judge, ,chikodi is null and void, has to be construed as the one for cancellation of the decree, inasmuch as, the result of granting such a relief is to cancel the decree itself. It is the substance of the relief that is relevant and material and not the form for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the suit is properly valued and the court- fee paid is sufficient. The plaintiffs are parties to the decree, therefore they have to seek a relief of cancellation of the decree. When the effect of the declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiffs-petitioners, if granted, is to set aside or cancel the money decree, the relief, necessarily falls under section 38 of the Act. The Act is a fiscal statute. It has to be construed strictly. If the substance of the relief sought for in a suit falls under a particular provision of the Act, it cannot be brought under the general provision. Section 24 (d) of the Act is in the nature of a general provision. It does not deal with any specific relief sough