Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Anand Pathak, J.
Gomatiprasad and another - Petitioners
Versus
Mahesh Singh and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 4467 of 2014
Decided on : 20-03-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri P.C. Chandil, learned Counsel
For the Respondents:Shri Pawan Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel, Kamal Jain, learned Government Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the applicability of Ad Valorem Court Fee depends on whether the relief sought is 'Declaration Simpliciter' or a consequential relief, and the interpretation of this distinction is crucial in determining the court fee.
Headnote:
Court Fee - Declaration Suit - [Ad Valorem Court Fee, Mitakshara Law, Hindu United Family, Consequential Relief] - The court discussed the applicability of Ad Valorem Court Fee in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, particularly in the context of Mitakshara Law and Hindu United Family. It highlighted key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that when the executant of a deed seeks annulment, they have to seek cancellation of the deed, but if a non-executant seeks annulment, they have to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid and not binding on them. The court also clarified the meaning of consequential relief and its applicability in determining the court fee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order directing them to pay Ad Valorem Court Fee instead of Fixed Court Fee in a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit property had been disposed of by the father of the petitioners without their consent, and the petitioners contended that they were entitled to Fixed Court Fee instead of Ad Valorem Court Fee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not required to pay Ad Valorem Court Fee as they were seeking relief of 'Declaration Simpliciter' and not consequential relief. It held that the sale deeds executed by the father were not binding on the petitioners, and therefore, they were liable to pay Fixed Court Fee instead of Ad Valorem Court Fee.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Ad Valorem Court Fee in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the rights of sons and daughters in the context of Mitakshara Law and Hindu United Family, and the interpretation of consequential relief under the Court Fees Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions related to court fees, the principles of Mitakshara Law governing joint family property, and the definition and applicability of consequential relief under the Court Fees Act.
Final Decision: The petitioners were allowed to proceed with the trial by paying Fixed Court Fee instead of Ad Valorem Court Fee, and the trial court was directed to continue the proceedings from the stage where they were stayed.
Anand Pathak, J.
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19/06/2014 passed by the Additional District Judge-Ambah whereby the trial Court has directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay Ad Valorem Court Fee instead of Fixed Court Fee.
2. According to counsel for the petitioners, petitioners/plaintiffs are real brother and sister (son and daughter of respondent No.4/defendant No.4), and respondent No.5 is the real brother of the petitioners. Respondent No.4 who happens to be the father of petitioners as well as respondent No.5 executed a sale deed in favour of present respondents No.1 to 3, and sold the suit property to respondents No.1 to 3 representing himself as the sole owner and possessor of the suit property.
3. Petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction and contended that the suit property has been disposed of by respondent No.4 in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 without any authority because the property was ancestral in nature and therefore, present petitioners/plaintiffs are also holders of ¼ shares of the suit property and their shares could not be disposed of by respondents No.4 to other respondents. Consent of petitioners/plaintiffs was not taken before execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is settled in law that when any suit for annulment of the sale deed or for declaration in respect of sale deed as not binding over plaintiffs in which plaintiffs are not the party, then it entails Fixed Court Fee and not Ad Valorem Court Fee. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Sunil s/o Dev Kumar Radhelia and Others v. Awadh Narayan and Others, 2010 (4) MPLJ 431 as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Harinarayan v. Gulabchandra, 2011 (4) MPLJ, 447.
4. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while deciding the case of Court Fee or an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are to be seen. According to him, no consequential relief has been sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs, therefore, Fixed Court Fee is to be paid rather than Ad Valorem Court Fee.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/defendants submits that petitioners are legally bound to pay Ad Valorem Court Fee because in the plaint averments it has been specifically pleaded by them that their father was the Karta of the Hindu United Family (for brevity "H.U.F.") and therefore, being Karta (Manager), he has disposed of the property, therefore, they are bound to pay Court Fee because the same is binding on the other members of the family even they are not parties to it. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, AIR 1973 SC, 2384 as well as judgment of this Court in the matter of Rajaram v. Sharad Kumar, 1994 (II) MPWN 253. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. From the pleadings, it appears that the present petition raises following questions of law for determination.
(1) Whether the petitioners/plaintiffs who are seeking relief of declaration simpliciter that three sale deeds dated 22/03/2014 executed in favour of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 by respondent No.4 are void and illegal and are not binding over the petitioners/plaintiffs or seeking annulment/cancellation of sale deeds dated 22/03/2014 ?
(2) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, present suit at the instance of sons and daughter (petitioners/plaintiffs herein) of the executant (father/respondent No.4) of sale deed dated 22/03/2014 can attract Ad valorem Court Fee because sons and daughters are bound by the sale deed executed by their father and their suit amounts to annulment of the decree and therefore, the
