A person who is claiming adverse possession is not required to pay ad-valorem Court Fees on the value of the sale deed executed by the true owner in favor of a third party.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. The copy of the plaint filed as Annexure A-1 with the revision memo seeks certain reliefs, that the land in dispute be declared to be of ownership of the plaintiffs, the defendants be restrained from interfering with plaintiffs possession, and it be further declared in favour of the plaintiffs that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 2 on 5-11-1996 does not convey any title in his favour. The plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs. 300/- for declaration Rs. 300/- for another declaration and Rs. 300/- for injunction. They accordingly paid court fees of Rs. 90/-. The suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge Class-II. The defendants after putting in their appearance, moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requesting the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that neither the suit was properly valued nor proper Court fees was paid. The learned trial Court by the order impugned observed that as the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the document in dispute does not convey any title in favour of the defendant No. 1 they have to value the claim as the value of the sale deed and must pay the Court Fees ad-valorem on the value of the document. Being dissatisfied by the said order directing the plaintiffs to pay the Court Fees, the plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition.

2. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the plaintiffs are not party to the sale deed and as the injunction is not a consequential relief of the said declaration, the Court could not direct payment of the Court Fees Under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. According to him, de-hors declaration if he could obtain an injunction, then the valuation as put forth by him under Article 17(iii), Schedule II would be well justified.

3. On the other hand, Shri Mukherjee, learned counsel for the non-applicants contended that though the defendants have not filed their written statement, but the plaintiffs must prove that they are in possession, the plaintiffs who are claiming through Girdharilal who has executed the sale deed must pay ad-valorem Court Fees and as the relief of injunction is the consequential relief, the plaintiffs are duty bound to value the suit to the value of document.

4. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act applies to a case where the plaintiff is seeking a declaratory decree or order and where the consequential relief is prayed for. The Courts have been repeatedly saying that a consequential relief would be only such relief which clearly follows the declaration or flows from the declaration. A consequential relief would be a relief which in absence of a declaration in favour of the party seeking it, cannot be granted. If the plaintiff is a party to the deed or earlier decree or any other proceeding wants to avoid it, then without seeking a declaration that such proceedings or documents were void, he cannot seek an injunction against the other party that the other party be restrained from taking benefit from the sale deed or executing the decree. In such a case unless the declaration is granted, no injunction would be issued. An injunction in such cases would be a consequential relief of the declaration. Without a declaration, the Court shall not grant such an injunction. A person who faces dispossession or the eviction in execution of a decree cannot simply file a suit for injunction that he be not dispossessed, because no Court would grant such a decree, but if he seeks a declaration that the earlier decree was obtained by a fraud or was illegal or was contrary to law, then in such a case the Court can grant such a declaration and while granting such a declaration, the Court can further grant an injunction in favour of such a plaintiff.

5. Section 7(iv)(c) would not be applicable to a case where de-hors declaration, an injunction can be granted. If the plaintiff files a suit for grant of an injunction against the defendant who claims to be the owner