Back
High Court Of Delhi
MAHANT PURSHOTTAM DASS - Appellant
Versus
HAR NARAIN - Respondent
First Appeal Order 153 of 1973
Decided On : 10/24/1977
COURT FEES - SUIT VALUATION - DECLARATORY RELIEF WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF - SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 7 (IV) (C) OF THE COURT FEES ACT, 1870 - APPLICABILITY - PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISO - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit in a representative capacity seeking a declaration that a will executed by the previous Mahant was void and illegal and did not confer any right or title on the defendants in the Ramdwara or the properties attached to it. They also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the Ramdwara and the property attached to it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was governed by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as the relief sought was a declaration coupled with consequential relief. The court further held that the second proviso to Section 7 (iv) (c) was applicable to the extent that the relief sought was with reference to immovable property, and that the value of the suit for purposes of court fees would be the market value of the immovable property plus the value of the relief for purposes of declaration and consequential relief in relation to cash, which the plaintiffs could value themselves.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was properly valued for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction? 2. Whether the second proviso to Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 was applicable to the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was governed by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as the relief sought was a declaration coupled with consequential relief. The court relied on the decision in Mt. Zeb-ul-Nissa v. Din Mahammad, which held that "consequential relief" in Section 7 (iv) (c) means some relief, which would follow directly from the declaration given the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for any where in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a "substantial relief." 2. The court held that the second proviso to Section 7 (iv) (c) was applicable to the extent that the relief sought was with reference to immovable property. The court relied on the decision in Shamsher Singh v. Rajindera Prasad, which held that the second proviso applies to suits which are with reference to any property if the valuation of the suit can be calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of section 7 of the Court fees Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that the suit had not been valued properly for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction and was rightly ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been placed before the Full Bench 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. 00 and also holding that the suit had not been valued correctly for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction 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 I, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. 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 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 Ramadwara and the property etc. attached to it as detailed above and the money of the Rarndwara and consequently the said defendants Nos I and 2 be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering in the possession of the Ramdwara and the property and cash attached to it which vests in the entire Ram Sanahi Kharproa Sect. "
( 4 ) IN para 16, the plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200. 00 and affixed the Court fees of Rs. 19. 50 on the plaint.
( 5 ) THE prayer in para 17 of the plaint was made on following material allegations : It was averred that the plaintiffs are members of Ram Sanahi Kharpara Sect. (hereinafter REFERRED TO as "the Sect") which comprises of innumerable persons. There is Ramdwara, known as chhota Ram Dwara" which belongs to and is dedicated for the benefit of the Sect. where in the general public and specially the members of the Sect have been gathering for purposes of worship and religious sermons.
( 6 ) B The said Ram Dwara was constructed in olden days and its origin is lost in antiquity. It was dedicated 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 a lot of beneficial acts for the upkeep of the said Ram Dwara with the moneys belonging to the Ram Dwara and also received offerings from the followers of the Sect.
( 7 ) 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 followers and for carrying out the religious objectives and directives.
( 8 ) 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 Ram Dwara and on no account such property could be treated as separate and personal properties by any of the Mahant in the line of succession of the said Ram Dwara.
( 9 ) 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 Rarndwara or property attached to it or its moneys received as offer- ings or the rent of the property to any one. The Mahant could only exercise his power of management of the Ram dwara and to repair the same during his lifetime 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 bank . The last Mahant of the Rarndwara in succession was Mahant N
AI
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
