Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
K.L. Shrivastava, J.
BALWANTSINGH
Versus
NANDAL
Decided On : Jan 05,1987
"A consequential relief means a relief which flows directly from the declaration sought for, such as the plaintiff will be able to claim in an ordinary suit by virtue of the title sought to be declared. A relief flowing from the relief for declaration and not capable of being claimed independently of it, it is a consequential relief and on refusal to grant the declaration, the other relief is also liable to be refused". 1982 JLJ-SN 72, AIR 1978 Delhi 114, AIR 1973 SC 2384, 1983 MPWN 15, 1983 JLJ-SN 55, 1971 JLJ-SN 69, 1970 JLJ 290, 1983 MPWN 66 and 1981 (1) MPWN 182 discussed.
(Para 18)
In the instant case, property is in ‘custodia legis‘ and the possession is held by the Court for the benefit of the party which is ultimately found to be entitled to it. It cannot, therefore, be held that the property is not in the possession of the petitioners and they are bound to claim the relief of possession as a consequential relief. The relief of injunction claimed is not a ‘consequential relief‘ within the meaning of the expression as used in section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. The relief of injunction claimed in the instant cage is incidental or distinct and separate and, therefore, the suit is not governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act and ad valorem Court-fee on the relief of injunction was not payable. AIR 1945 All. 111 distinguished.
(Para 22)
(2) Specific Relief Act, 1963-S. 34-suit for mere declaration-Court-fees payable.
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for suit for mere declaration where no consequential relief is prayed for. It may be pointed out that the section does not sanction every form of declaration but only a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property. The proviso to the section provides when a suit for mere declaration will not be maintainable. A suit for mere declaration under section 34 of Specific Relief Act is governed by Art. 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Act and a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 30/- is payable.
(Para 10)
( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 15-3-1984 passed by the Additional Judge to the District Judge, Neemuch in C. S. No. 16-A of 1981 whereby it has been held that the petitioners have to pay court fee on Rs. 41200/- being the value of the truck in question.
( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this petition are these. According to the suit instituted by the petitioners Baldeo and his son Tulsiram, the truck bearing registration no. MPU 6248 initially belonged to one Kannu Bhai Gujarati. It was purchased by the petitioner Baldeo, his younger brother, the N. A. Nandlal and the N. A. 2 Mangilal, who had all contributed towards its price Rs. 33051/ -. The purchase was in the name of nandlal. The permit to ply the truck was not transferred in the name of Nandlal.
( 3. ) THE petitioners and the other vendors plied the truck for some period and ultimately on 24-9-1978 it was agreed amongst the three vendors the petitioner No. 1, nandlal and Mangilal that the last two would be paid Rs. 4,000/- each and the title to the truck would pass to petitioner No. 1. All the relevant papers, on payments as agreed, were handed over to the petitioner No. 1 which he surrendered through Daryavsingh r/o Mandsaur to the R. T. O. on 28-9-1978 as the truck was not road-worthy. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 22,000/- was spent by the petitioners on the truck and it was made road-worthy.
( 4. ) LATER Nandlal lodged a report with the Javad Police on 17-11-1978 that the truck had been stolen and later he filed a complaint on 21-11-1978 therein stating that the occurrence was of 15-9-1978. The J. MF. C. Javad sent the complaint to the Javad police for investigation and ordered the seizure of the truck in case it was found to be the subject of theft.
( 5. ) THE police found that there was no case of theft. As there was a dispute between the two brothers regarding the truck the same was seized on 27-11-1978 from the possession of petitioner No. 2 Tulsiram and the matter was reported to the Court for orders.
( 6. ) THE petitioner No. 1 and Nandlal both applied for interim custody of the truck. The learned trial Magistrate ordered it to be handed over in the Supratnama of Nandlal on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 75,000/ -. N. A. No. 3 Hiralal is the surety.
( 7. ) IN the suit, the petitioners contend that the truck which is in custodia legis belongs to them and they are entitled to receive it from the Court of the J. M. F. C. Javad. They have claimed declaration of title to the truck. Apprehending interference with their possession of the truck when they are placed in possession thereof, they have also claimed injunction. For jurisdiction the suit has been valued at Rs. 41,200/- that being the value of the truck. For the relief of declaration fixed court fee of Rs. 300/- has been paid and valuing the relief of injunction at Rs. 200/- court fee of Rs. 20/- has been paid. ,
( 8. ) THE learned lower court held that the suit being for declaration with consequential relief of injunction is governed by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short the Act) and court fee is payable on the value of the truck.
( 9. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.
( 10. ) SECTION 7 (iv) (c) of the Act reads thus :-
7. "computation of fees payable in certain suits - The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :- (iv) in suits - (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief :-to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed; according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal, with a minimum fee of twenty rupees. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought :.
. . . "
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for suit for mere declaration where no consequential relief is prayed for. It
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
