The court articulated that a suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold for alleged insufficiency of court fees if it discloses a valid cause of action, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the merits through trial.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This First Appeal is being preferred under Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the learned III^rd Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), whereby the suit instituted by the Plaintiffs/Appellants has been dismissed at the threshold by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaint was insufficiently stamped.

2. Facts of the case, as canvased, are that the appellants, who were the Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court, instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of different immovable properties described in Schedules appended to the plaint. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they are the owners and in peaceful possession of the suit property situated at Plot No. 33, admeasuring 225 square meters, Nazul Sheet No. 49-C, Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon, as more fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. They further sought a declaration that defendants No. 1 to 11 are the owners and in possession of the property situated at Plot No. 14/2, admeasuring 176 square meters, Nazul Sheet No. 27-D along with the house constructed thereon, as described in Schedule-B, and that defendants No. 12 to 22 are the owners and in possession of the property situated at Plot No. E-33, admeasuring 25 × 40 feet (1000 sq. ft./92.90 sq. meters), Samta Sahkari Grih Nirman Sanstha Samiti, Chirhuldih, along with the house constructed thereon, as detailed in Schedule-C of the plaint. In addition thereto, a decree of permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, along with any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The aforesaid reliefs were claimed on the foundation that Ratanlal, the father of the Plaintiffs, Gendlal, the father of defendants No. 1 to 4 and 10 and 11 and the grandfather of defendants No. 5 to 9, and Champalal, the father of defendants No. 12 to 22, were real brothers and constituted a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It was pleaded that various properties were acquired out of joint family funds and were held for the benefit of the members of the HUF, though some of the properties stood in the names of individual members for convenience. It was specifically pleaded that on 23.07.1984, the HUF purchased a property in the name of Gambhirmal Parakh (defendant No. 13, son of Champalal) by a registered sale deed, which property has been described in Schedule-C of the plaint. Subsequently, on 09.02.1987, another property was purchased by the HUF in the name of Champabai, wife of Ratanlal, through a registered sale deed, the said property being described in Schedule-B of the plaint. It was further averred that on 01.04.1992, a partnership firm under the name and style of Ratanlal Shantilal Parakh was constituted between Ratanlal, Gendlal, Champalal and Shantilal (defendant No. 12). During the subsistence of the said partnership firm, the property described in Schedule-A of the plaint was acquired. Thereafter, on 01.04.1997, the partnership firm was dissolved, pursuant to which Ratanlal separated from the HUF after taking the property described in Schedule-A towards his share. After the demise of Ratanlal, the plaintiffs, being his legal representatives, continued to remain in possession of the said property. It was also pleaded that thereafter Champalal and Gendlal, by wa