Honble GUPTA, J. – In this appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment & decree dt. 14.12.1995 a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants have not filed sufficient court fees. Because the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the court fees arose notice of the appeal was also given to the Govt. Advocate.

(2). It was pointed out by Mr. Maloo that the plaintiffs have challenged the decree dated 14.12.1995 passed in civil suit No. 206/95 which was valued at Rs. 1,51,20,000/- but they have paid court fees of Rs. 43565 only. According to him the appeal should have been valued at Rs. 1 crore 51 lacs 20 thousand as was done in the suit and the same amount of court fees is liable to be paid in this appeal which was paid on the trial court. He invited my attention to the provisions of Section 15 and 40 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.

(3). Learned Dy. G.A. has also submitted that insufficient court fees has been paid in this appeal.

(4). On the other hand the contention of Mr. Chopra was that in this appeal the plaintiffs have challenged the decree mainly on the ground that the trial Court has forgot to adjust a sum of Rs. 10 lac 70 thousand and the other matters are ancillary and, therefore, the valuation of appeal of Rs. 8 lacs 70 thousand is proper and adequate court fees has been paid. According to him, the plaintiffs had succeeded in the suit but only a rider was added in the decree that on failure to deposit of amount by the plaintiffs the suit shall stand dismissed and as the plaintiffs had already filed revision petition against the order denying the plaintiffs the extension of time they were not required to pay court fees on the entire amount. He tried to bring the case under Section 40(e) of the Raj. Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) read with Section 45 of that Act and submitted that at the most Rs. 300 can be demanded from him which he is prepared to pay.

(5). A reading of the memorandum of appeal reveals that the decree of the trial court has been assailed on many grounds including the one that the trial court has erred in giving the plaintiffs only seven days time to deposit the amount. It has been averred that the trial court has committed error in ordering that the cost of the suit shall be borne by the respective parties. In the memorandum of appeal the grounds have been mentioned from (A) to (H). In ground (A) it has been stated that the trial court has not gone into the serious questions which were raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint that the land was situate near the military area and the trucks and tanks of the military authorities were standing on the disputed land and that even the defendants had filed writ petition in this Court bearing no. 1550/95 against the Union of India praying that the Army be restrained from interfering in their Khatedari rights which was dismissed by the High Court. In Ground No. (B) it has been averred that the trial Court erred in not calling upon the defendants to file their written statements which was necessary in view of the fact that the plaintiffs had raised the question that the defendants were required to obtain income tax clearance certificate from the income tax authorities. In Ground (C) it has been stated that there was serious dispute of the identity of the land and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not be expected to purchase the land. In ground no. (D) it has been averred that Rs. 8 lacs 70 thousand paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants were not adjusted in the amount of decree. In Ground No. (E) it has been said that some of the defendants did not give their consent to execute the sale deed and the trial court was wrong in passing a partial decree in a suit for specific performance. In ground no. (F) it has been stated that the trial court has erred in observing that the objections raised by the plaintiffs regarding the identi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document