This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsiff Badgam dated 28-12-63 where by the learned Munsiff has asked the petitioner to make good the deficiency in the court fee paid by the plaintiff upon the consideration fixed in the sale deed.

The facts that have given rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner brought a suit with the following prayer against the defendants respondents in the court of the Munsiff Badgam. The plaintiff prayed that a decree be passed for cancellation of the sale deed to the effect that the sale deed dated 22-5-62 registered on 26-5-62 by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 for six marlas of land and trees standing thereon in survey No. 495 khewat No. 35 situate in village Watalpura Bandapura is void and ineffective against the plaintiff. He fixed the value of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 10. The sale deed mentioned a consideration of Rs. 2000. On an objection by the defendants about the inadequacy of the court fee, the Munsiff held that the suit should be valued for court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 2000, the consideration mentioned in the sale deed. Against this order the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.

I have beared the learned counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the valuation fixed by the plaintiff for court fee and jurisdiction has been properly fixed. According to him this is a suit which falls under S. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court fees Act, i. e., a suit for declaration with consequential relief and as such the plaintiff can fix his own valuation upon the plaint. The learned counsel for the respondent agrees that this suit falls under the said part of the section, but according to him the valuation for court fee should be consideration mentioned in the sale deed.

In disposing of this revision petition, we have first to see what provision of the Court fees Act governs the suit of the plaintiff and then see what should be valuation fixed for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction in such a case. The plaintiff has styled the suit apparently for cancellation of the sale deed and has qualified it with seeking a relief to the effect that the sale deed in question is void and inoperative against the plaintiff. The first point for determination is whether such a suit by the plaintiff is under S. 42 or S. 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Under S. 42 of the Act "Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for further relief.

Illus. (d) of this section says :

A alienates to 8 property in which A has r merely a life interest. The alienation is invalid as against C, who is entitled as reversionary. The Court may in a suit by C against A and B declare that C is so entitled"

Illus. (e) refers to the case of a sonless widow who alienates part of the property in her possession as such, The presumptive heir according to this illustration can obtain a declaration against her as well as the aliened that the alienation is void beyond the widows life-time. S. 39 of the Act lays down that "any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or vidable ; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be deli vered up and cancelled."

A careful examination of the provisions of both these sections would show that the case of a person who feels that some cloud is cast upon his title by means of an act on the part of the other party, whether that act be in the shape of a document or otherwise, can seek declaration that it is void against him. The language of S. 39 of the Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document