Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 863
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY
Pintu Santra
Versus
Sambhunath Samanta
C.O. No. 2844 of 2006
Decided On : 26-07-2010
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Banerjee, Advovate.
For the Respondent:J. R. Chatterjee, Mrs. Sarmistha Ghosh Sharma, Advocates.
In a suit for declaration simplicitor, a relief for setting aside a deed of sale is a consequential relief and the suit is not required to be valued on the valuation of the property.
Headnote:
COURT FEES - SUIT FOR DECLARATION - CONSEQENTIAL RELIEF - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES ACT, 1870 - SECTION 7(IV)(C) - Whether the plaintiffs are required to pay court fees on the value of the deed of sale in a suit for declaration simplicitor, where the relief for setting aside the deed of sale is a consequential relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit property was their joint and undivided property and that the sale deed executed by the defendants in favor of the opposite parties was ineffective. The trial court directed the plaintiffs to pay court fees on the value of the deed of sale, holding that the relief for setting aside the deed of sale was a principal relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was a declaratory suit simplicitor and the relief for setting aside the deed of sale was a consequential relief. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not required to pay court fees on the value of the deed of sale.
Issues: Whether the relief for setting aside a deed of sale in a suit for declaration simplicitor is a principal relief or a consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in 2006(1) CHN 526, which held that a relief for setting aside a deed of sale in a suit for declaration simplicitor is a consequential relief and the suit is not required to be valued on the valuation of the property.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial court and directed the trial court to proceed with the preemptory hearing of the suit.
Kanchan Chakraborty, J:
1) The revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the Sri Rana Dam, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Chandernagore in Title Suit No. 42 of 2005 whereby the learned Trial Judge directed the plaintiff to put in necessary Court-fees on the value of a deed of sale by 11.5.2006 and kept the preemptory hearing of the suit in abeyance.
2) The propriety of such order is under challenged in this application at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The petitioner/plaintiff Pintu Santra and three others instituted the suit referred to above against the present Opposite parties Sambhunath Samanta and eight others praying the for following reliefs :
a) a declaration to the effect that the suit property described in the scheduled appended to the plaint is joint and undivided property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 9;
b) a declaration to the effect that the sale deed by defendant Nos. 4 to 9 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on 29.8.2002 in respect of some portion of the disputed property is ineffective and not acted upon;
c) a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs have 1/7th share each in the suit property;
d) a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and other reliefs.
3) The case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court is that the property in dispute was originally belonging to their predecessor in interest Arabindo Jana. On his death, the property was devolved upon the defendant the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 4 to 9 had been possessing the property jointly without effecting any pertition by metes and bound. Sometime in the year 2005, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 obstructed the plaintiffs to enter into the suit property and caused disturbance in their possession over the suit property on the ground that they purchased the shares of the defendant Nos. 4 to 9 by registered deed on 29.8.2002. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not agree to the proposal of the plaintiffs to get property pertitioned mutually and denied the joint right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property. So, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for the reliefs mentioned earlier.
4) The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 entered appearance in the suit and ultimately the suit reached at preemptory hearing stage. Suddenly on 4.4.2006 the learned Trial Court on scrutiny of the case record detected that amongst the reliefs prayed for, a relief in form of declaration that the deed of sale being no. 3911 dated 29.8.2002 was void ab initio, was sought for. He, came to a conclusion that because of that relief, the plaintiffs were supposed to pay requisite Court-fees on the value of the impugned deed of sale. He directed the plaintiff to pay the Court-fees by 11.5.2006 and kept the preemptory hearing of the suit in abeyance till that date.
5) Being dissatisfied with the said order, this revision application has been filed by the present petitioner Pintu Santra alone challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order.
6) The short point to be considered in this revision is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing impugned order directing the plaintiff to pay Court-fees on the valuation of the deed of sale dated 29.8.2002.
7) Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the principal relief sought for by the plaintiff is declaration that the property in dispute is undivided and joint property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 4 to 9 and that they have 1/7th share undivided share each in the suit property. The relief No. 2, i.e., a declaration to the effect that the deed of sale dated 29.8.2002 executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by defendant Nos. 4 to 9 is inoperative and ineffective being a consequential relief, no Court-fees is requ
