Back
High Court Of Delhi
MAHANT PURSHOTTAM DASS - Appellant
Versus
HAR NARAIN - Respondent
First Appeal Order 153 of 1973
Decided On : 10/24/1977
{'KEYWORD': 'COURT FEES ACT, 1870', 'SUBJECT': 'VALUATION OF SUIT FOR PURPOSES OF COURT FEES AND JURISDICTION', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['SECTION 7 (IV) (C)', 'SECTION 7 (IV) (D)', 'SECTION 7 (V)', 'SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 7 (IV) (C)']}
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, members of the Ram Sanahi Kharapa Sect, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a will executed by the late Mahant Narsingh Dass was void and illegal and did not confer any right or title on the defendants in the Ramdwara and the properties attached to it. The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 200 and affixed court-fee of Rs. 19.50 on the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the suit had not been valued correctly for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction and that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.
Issues: ['Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?', 'Whether the relief of declaration prayed for by the plaintiffs was necessary?', 'Whether the relief of injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs can be considered as consequential to the main relief?', 'Whether the second proviso to Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act is applicable to the present suit?']
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relief of declaration prayed for by the plaintiffs was necessary as they could not claim the relief of injunction without praying for declaration. 2. The relief of declaration and injunction prayed for is a claim to obtain declaratory relief where consequential relief is prayed for. 3. The second proviso to Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act is applicable to the present suit as the relief sought is with reference to immovable property and agricultural land, which are properties within the meaning of the proviso. 4. The value of the suit for purposes of court-fees would be Rs. 45,000 plus the value of the relief for purposes of declaration and consequential relief in relation to cash which the plaintiffs may value.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been placed before the full Beach in view of the order of reference dated May 18, 1977, passed by Kapur, J-
( 2 ) THE appeal was filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the order dated May 14, 1973 passed by Shri A. K. Srivastava, Sub-Judge, Delhi holding that the value of the suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction was Rs. 54,000 and also holding that the suit had not been valued correctly for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction and that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff-appellants had filed the present suit, out of which the appeal arises, in their representative capacity under Order 1, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer made in the plaint was as under :
"17. Therefore, the plaintiffs pray that a Declaration decree to the effect with costs of the suit be passed in favour of the Ram Sanahi Sect. that the said alleged WILL was not executed and could not be executed by the said Mahant Narsingh Dass and that the said WILL is void, and illegal which confers no right or title whatsoever on the defendants in Ramdwara and the property, etc. , attached to if as detailed above and the money of the Ramdwara and consequently the said defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering in the possession of the Rarndwara and the property and cash attached to it which vests in the entire Ram Sanahi Kharapa Sect. "
( 4 ) IN paragrph 16, the plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200 and affixed the court-fee of Rs. 19. 50 on the plaint.
( 5 ) THE prayer in paragraph 17 of the plaint was made on the following material allegations.
( 6 ) IT was averred that the plaintiffs arc members of Ram Sanahi Kharapa Sect (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Sect") which comprises of innumerable persons. There is a Rarndwara. known as "chhota Ram Dwara" which belongs to and is dedicated for the benefit of the Sect wherein the general public and specially the members of the Sect have been gathering for purposes of worship and religious surmons.
( 7 ) THE said Ram Dwara was constructed in olden days audits origin is lost in antiquity. It-was dedictated for religious purposes to the followers of the Sect. One of the Mahants of the said Ram Dwara, Mahant Bhagwan Dass, guru of Mahant Purshottam Dass, the then incumbent Mahant of the said Ram Dwara did lot of beneficial acts for the up-keep of the said Ram. Dwara with the moneys belonging to the Ram Dwara and also received offerings from the followers of the Sect.
( 8 ) THUS, the Ram Dwara is a religious and charitable institution built and dedicated for use by the said Sect and its followers in general and is not the property of any individual or of any incumbent Mahant. The incumbent Mahant simply sits as Custodian and Pujari of the said Sect and looks after and manages the Ram Dwara and its properties for the welfare of the follewers and for carrying out the religious objectives and directives.
( 9 ) IT was alleged that the acquisitions made by a Mahant from the Ram Dwara including the offerings or income from the property are the properties of the Ramdwara and on no account such property could be treated as separate and personal properties by any of the Mahants in the line of succession of the said Ramdwara.
( 10 ) IT was then averred that according to law, usage and custom and tenets of the said Sect, no Mahant has the right or power to transfer or give the said Ramdwara or property attached to it or its moneys received as offerings or the rent of the property to any one. The Mahant could only exercise his power of management of the Ramdwara and to repair the same during his life-time and then he passes it on to his own chela who succeeds him when nominated by him or is otherwise elected as a Mahant by the bhek . The. last Mahant of the Ramdwara in suc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
