Devi Prasad Singh, J.-

The instant appeal under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act, 1860 (in short the Act) has been preferred against the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahraich, in Regular Suit No. 157 of 2009.

Learned Civil Judge had allowed the application filed by the defendants directing the plaintiffs-appellant to pay ad valorem court fee keeping in view the value of the property in dispute. Suit was filed for declaration and injunction with consequential relief.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants claimed to be the owner of the property marked as ABCDEFGHIJKL in the site plan filed with plaint. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that their ancestors have been owner of the land in question since 1935 obtained from the Zamindar. They have constructed boundary wall on the substantial portion of the property with iron fencing. Different gata nos. constitute the property and right of ownership rests on written permission granted by the Zamindar in 1937-38 for the respective shares to the plaintiffs' ancestors. Certain portion of land was purchased through registered sale deed by plaintiffs' father Late Shri Kashi Ram on 28.5.1965 from the record as tenure holder. A factory of rice and dal mill was also established on a portion of land in question alongwith residential building and office of the mill. It is also pleaded that after independence right from 1952, the mill was registered with the industry department, Zila Parishad and Mandi Parishad renewed from time to time. Necessary correction was also made in the year 1969.

3. After death of grand-father Shri Laxmin Narain, plaintiffs' father Kashi Ram and grand father Banarsi lal inherited the property. They acquired the possession of the mill and adjoining grove land. There are number of trees of different varieties standing over the substantial portion of land. Certain portion of land was also sold to the different suger mill. It is pleaded that defendants tried to dispossess the petition­ers by their fraudulent acts and tried to forcibly evict them with their muscle men on 26.3.2009. Hence cause of action arise to prefer the suit. The cost of land, trees and machinery standing over the land in dispute has been assessed to Rs. ten lacs. While preferring the suit, the plaintiffs had prayed for declaration against defendants-respondents as owner of the land and property in question and also claimed relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the appellants' peaceful possession on the land in question. The trial court framed different issues and one of the issue relates to court fee. An objection was filed by the defendants that the court fee has not been sufficiently paid The payment of court fee by the plaintiffs in pursuance to provision contained in Section 7A of the Act is not lawful. The defendants stated that the appellants-plaintiffs is liable to pay ad valorem court fee keeping in view the cost of property in question. The trial court upheld the objec­tion of defendants and directed to pay court fee ad valorem keeping in view the cost of the property in sgit. Both the sides have relied upon Section 7A of the Act. Rel­evant portion of the Act is re-produced as under:-

"Computation of fees payable in certain suits for money:- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suit next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:

For money-(i) In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensa­tion, or arrears of maintenance, or annuities, or of other sums payable periodically)-according to the amount claimed;

For maintenance and annuities-(ii-a) In suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically, according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year;

Provided that in suits for personal maintenance by females and minors, such value shall be deemed to be the amount claimed to be p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document