In a suit for a declaration that a document is forged and fabricated, the court-fee payable is the fixed court-fee under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II, Court-fees Act.

Choudhary, J.

1. This application arises out of a court-fee matter. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit for declaration that a certain sale deed purported to have been executed by him on 10-10-1952, was a forged and fabricated document and that it did not pass any title to the defendants and was not binding on the plaintiff.

The latter two reliefs, however, were deleted by way of amendment of the plaint. Thus, the only relief sought for in the plaint is that a declaration should be made in favour of the plaintiff that the sale deed in question was a forged and fraudulent document. The case of the plaintiff as appears from the various averments made in the plaint is that on 10-10-1950, the defendants forcibly took the plaintiffs thumb impression on several blank stamp, cartridge and ordinary papers and manufactured a sale deed on those papers after having forged his signature. As such, the plaintiff wanted to make out a case that he was not a party to the document and the signatures on the sale deed purporting to be of the plaintiff were rank forgery. He, therefore, wanted a simple declaration that the sale deed was a forged and fraudulent document inasmuch as it was not executed by him. No. doubt, in the plaint, he has made certain averments as regards the non-passing of the consideration and possession of the land alleged to have been conveyed by the said sale deed.

But those averments have been made only for the purpose of giving further support to his case that he" was not an executant of the sale deed. He, therefore, paid court-fee for a declaratory suit as provided by Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II, Court-fees Act. For the purpose of jurisdiction, however, the suit was valued at Rs. 10,000. An objection was taken by the defendants about the sufficiency of the court-fee. The learned Subordinate Judge relying on a Pull Bench decision of this Court in -- Mt. Rupia V/s. Bhatu Mahton, AIR 1944 Pat 17 (FB) (A), held that ad valorem court-fee should have been paid. He, therefore, directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fee by a certain date failing which the suit was to be dismissed for non-compliance of the courts order. Against this order the plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court.

2. In the Full Bench case of this Court referred to above, the plaintiff was a party to the deed in question as regards which a declaration was sought for on his behalf that it was not binding on him inasmuch as it was got executed by him fraudulently. It was held in that case that, though only a declaration was sought for, by implication, a consequential relief was prayed for having the document cancelled, inasmuch as the plaintiff being a party to the document could avoid it as being fraudulent by institution of a proper suit and it was, therefore, necessary that a decree avoiding the effect of the deed should be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

That was a case of voidable document as opposed to void document where the plaintiff alleges that he was not a party at all to the document. If a plaintiff comes with a case that he never executed a document and his signature on it was forged, it is not necessary for him to get a consequential relief to have the document cancelled, because so (far as he is concerned, the document does not stand at all.

Reference was made in the above Full Bench decision of this Court to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in -- Karam Khan V/s. Daryai Singh, 5 All 331 (FB) (B), in which it was held that a suit for the cancellation of an instrument executed by a third party in respect of property, to which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled, was one for a declaratory decree of the kind mentioned in Sec.3 9, Specific Relief Act and not seeking any consequential relief, and, therefore, not falling under Section 7 ( iv) (c), Court-fees Act. With regard to that case their Lordships observed that it may be that the actual decision in that case was right inasmuch as the plaintif