Proper court-fee is determined based on the nature of relief sought, and the plaintiff may not be required to pay ad valorem court-fee if the relief of cancellation of a deed is not essential.

1. Chhote Lal has filed suit for declaration that he has become owner through adverse possession of land measuring 9 kanal 18 marla as detailed in para 1 of the plaint and that sale deed dated 26-7-90 in respect of this land executed by Sher Singh in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 79,25,000.00is null and void. By way of consequential relief, he has sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession of the said land or dispossessing him therefrom.

2. It is alleged in the plaint that he is in peaceful possession of this land sicne the times of his ancestors for over 30 years. He is in actual and physical cultivating possession. His possession has throughout been adverse. Through adverse possession, he has acquired title to this land. Through adverse possession, he has extinuished the title or the true owner and the title has become vested in him. Entries in the revenue record showing Sher Singh etc. as owner and in possession are void. Defendant resisted the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged inter alia that the plaintiff had not paid proper court-fee on the plaint. Plaintiff should have paid court-fee on the plaint on the valuation of the land entered in sale deed dated 26-7-90. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant made an application under Order 14, Rule 2, CPC praying that issue No. 5 be treated as a preliminary issue. It was prayed that plaint be rejected for non-payment of proper court-fee. On the prayer of the defendant. Issue No. 5 as to court-fee was treated as a preliminary issue.

3. Plaintiff has paid Rs. 25.00 as court-fee on the plaint. He has valued the plaint for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200.00.

4. Issue No. 5 was ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue. On this issue, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon vide order dated 4-12-99 held that the plaintiffs case was covered by Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Court-Fees Act and, therefore he was required to pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of the property involved. Plaintiff was required to pay court-fee on the valuation of the property which was entered in the sale deed dated 26-7-90 as Rs. 79,25,000.00. He was thus required to pay court-fee on the amount of Rs. 79,25,000.00. He was given 20 days time to make up the deficiency in court-fee.

5. Aggrieved by this order dated 4-12-99, plaintiff has come up in revision to this court.

6. I have heard Shri C. B. Goel, Advocate representing the petitioner and Shri H. S. Mattewal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate representing the respondent and have gone through the record.

7. In Shamsher Singh V/s. Rajinder Prasad and others, AIR 1973 SC 2384, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows "The court in deciding the question of court-fee should look into the allegations in the paint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the court looking at the substance of the relief asked for."

8. In this case, therefore, we have to discover what really is the relief which the plaintiff has asked for. Whether the plaintiff was essentially required to claim that the sale deed 26-7-90 executed by Sher Singh in favour of the defendant was null and void for claiming the relief that he has become owner by adverse possession or he could be given the relief of declaration that he has acquired title to this land through adverse possession for over 30 years and by way of consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering or dispossessing him from the land in suit without his asking for that the sale deed executed by Sher Singh in favour of the defendant dated 26-7-90 was null and void. In other words, court is required to find out whether the relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction could be allowed to the plaintiff with