Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Yatindra Singh and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.
Veena Bahl
Versus
Vishnu Kumar
F.A.F.O. 1704 of 2005
Decided On : 16 August 2005
F. A. F. O. 1704 Of 2005
Court Fees Act - Valuation of Suit - Consequential Relief - Section 7 (iv) (a)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership of certain properties and relief of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties. The defendants contested the suit, arguing that the court fees paid by the plaintiffs were insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the relief of injunction sought by the plaintiffs was a consequential relief, and therefore, Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act was applicable. The court upheld the lower court's order, confirming that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient and should have been paid on the entire valuation of the suit property in accordance with Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the relief of injunction sought by the plaintiffs was a consequential relief, and if so, whether Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act was applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the relief of injunction was a consequential relief, as it depended on the grant of the declaratory relief of ownership. Therefore, Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act was applicable, and the court fee should have been paid on the entire valuation of the suit property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Additional District Judge was confirmed.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 23. 4. 2005, passed by Sri Akhilesh Chandra Sharma, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 10, Moradabad in Original Suit No. 319 of 1982, Smt. Veena Bahl and Ors. v. Sri Vishnu Kumar and Ors.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiffs Smt. Veena Banal, Smt. Rarnwati Devi and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Rastogi (now all deceased) filed O. S. No. 319 of 1982 in the court of Civil Judge, Moradabad, against the defendants Sri Vishnu Kumar and Ors. with these allegations that the properties specified in Schedule a and b were owned by Raja krishan Kumar and his son Raja Raj Kumar who jointly executed a registered deed of transfer on 6. 8. 1896 in favour of Anirudh Kumar and Lal Kumar. It was further provided in that deed that the property shall not be transferred to any non-member of the family so long as the members of the family were ready to take it. Sri Lal Kumar died unmarried and thereafter Sri anirudh Kumar also died and so the property was inherited by his son Jagdish Kumar. Jagdish kumar also died on 22. 3. 1932 and he was succeeded by his widow Smt. Surendra Bala Devi. She executed her last Will in favour of her daughter Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Tandon (mother of plaintiff No. 1 on 18. 5. 1964) narrating therein that her Manager Pt. Shymal Lal Chaubey had obtained a Will of this property on 23. 12. 1963 in his own favour which was written in a language not known to her and she was wrongfully made to sign it without explaining its contents to her. Under the said Will dated 18. 5. 1964, the properties described in Schedule a of the plaint were bequeathed to Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Tandon who died on 17. 12. 1980, leaving behind plaintiff No. 1 as her sole heir and thus plaintiff No. 1 became owner in possession of the properties left by her. Smt. Surendra Bala had filed Suit No. 17 of 1944 against her mother-in-law, Smt. Ginda Kunwar widow of Sri Anirudh Kumar in the court of Civil Judge, moradabad and aggrieved with the order of the Civil Judge, Smt. Gainda Kunwar filed Civil revision No. 338 of 1945 before High Court at Allahabad and in this revision a compromise was filed by Smt. Gainda Kunwar and Smt. Surendra Bala on 16. 12. 1947 and according to this compromise Smt. Gainda Kunwar was given a life interest in the property specified in Schedule b of the plaint in lieu of her maintenance allowance and she was put in actual possession of that property and after enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Gainda Kunwar became full owner of this property. Smt. Veena Bahl, plaintiff No. 1 died on 22. 10. 1986 during the pendency of the present suit leaving behind her husband and two sons as her legal heirs and they were impleaded as plaintiff Nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. Smt. Gainda Kunwar executed a registered will of property specified in Schedule B in favour of her grand-daughter Smt. Rajeshwari Devi on 23. 12. 1967. Smt. Gainda Kunwar died on 15. 4. 1974 and then Smt. Rajeshwari Devi became owner of this property by virtue of above Will. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi also died on 17. 12. 1980 and then her daughter Smt. Veena Bahl (plaintiff No. 1) became sole owner of the aforesaid property. Smt. Surendra Bala was not in possession of the property specified in Schedule b in 1956 when the Hindu Succession Act was enforced and she had no right to execute any Will of the above property on 23. 12. 1963. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi never entered into any agreement with sri Vishnu Kumar (defendant No. 1) on 25. 5. 1968 or on any other date. No such agreement was signed by her and the agreement relied upon by defendant No. 1. Shri Vishnu Kumar is a void document. The Will relied upon by defendant No. 1 is invalid on this ground also that it has been made by Surendra Bala in favour of persons who are not member of her family. The plaintiff No. 1 after the death of her mother has become sole owner in possession of the disputed property but de
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
