1995 Supreme(MP) 1198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N.K. JAIN, J.
Varud Ahmed - Petitioner
Versus
Nihal Ahmed - Respondent
C.R. No. 356 of 1991 (I)
Decided On : 10-10-1995

Headnote:(1) Court-fees Act, 1870 – – S. 7 (iv) (c) – – suit for declaration – – fixed court – fees is payable.

       (2) Court-fees Act, 1870 – – S. 7 (iv) (c) – suit for declaration and injunction – – separate valuation for injunction made and accordingly court – fees paid – determination of court – fees has to be made from averments of plaint as to whether relief of injunction is consequential or inconsequential.

        Short Note

       1. This is plaintiff’s revision petition directed against the order dated 31st July, 1991 of the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain directing the plaintiffs to pay ad – valorem court – fees on the market value of the property.

       2. The suit giving rise to this revision is filed by the plaintiff for declaration that they were the owner of the suit property in possession thereof. They also sought permanent injunction to restrain the respondent defendant No.1 from selling the property to defendant No.2 or any other person and from interfering with their possession of the suit property. For the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiffs valued their suit at 21,300/ – . However, a fixed court – fees of Rs. 30/ – was paid for relief of declaration. For injunction the suit was valued at Rs. 300/ – and accordingly court – fee of Rs. 30/ – was paid. The defendants – non – applicants raised objection and urged that the suit fell within the provision of Sec. 7 (IV) (c) of the Court-fees Act and, therefore, the suit ought to be valued at the same amount of Rs. 21,300/ – both for the purposes of payment of court – fees and the jurisdiction of the Court and ad – valorem court – fees ought to be paid on the said valuation. The trial Court vide its impugned order upheld the defendant's contention and directed the plaintiffs to pay ad – valorem court – fees as above.

       3. The plaintiffs – applicants have assailed the impugned order as contrary to law and contended that the relief of permanent injunction claimed in the plaint was not consequential to the relief of declaration but independent thereof and, therefore, the same was governed by section 7 (IV) (d) of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs could and have rightly therefore, put their own separate valuation for that relief of injunction and paid court – fees accordingly. As regards, the relief of declaration, it was further conceded to fix court – fees of Rs. 30/ – was payable under entry 17 of Schedule (2) of the Act. As against this learned counsel for the non – applicants (defendants) defended the finding of the Court below and urged that the relief of injunction was consequential to the relief of declaration and as such the plaintiffs were liable to value their suit under section 7 (IV) (c) of the Act and pay ad – valorem court – fees on that value.

       4. It is well settled that for the purpose of determining the question of Court Fees, only the plaint averment which are to be seen and no attention is to be paid to the written statement or even to the final decision that may be rendered on merit in the suit (See Jagdish Prasad Sukhdharan v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board 1987 MPLJ 452). In the instant case, the decision of this revision turns on the finding whether or not the relief of injunction is consequential to the relief of declaration? From the averments made in the plaint (I have perused the plaint in the suit at the time of hearing) it is clear that the plaintiffs have claimed to be the owner and also in the possession of the suit property. On this basis they have claimed two distinct reliefs; one for declaration of their title to the suit property and the other for permanent injunction. I find myself in full agreement with the Learned Counsel for the applicants that the plaintiffs on the basis of their possession could have brought a suit for injunction alone. That being so relief of injunction claimed by the plaintiffs is not dependent on their seeking or being given relief of declaration. "Consequential Relief" as observed by their Lordships in (Shamsher Singh's Case AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2384), means "some relief which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a “Supposed Relief”. Applying this test to the suit before us we find that the relief of injunction claimed by the plaintiffs does not flow from the relief of declaration and is capable of being granted independently thereof.

       5. In a similar case this Court in Civil Revision No. 428/81 decided on 3.8.82 held that such a suit would not fall within the provision of section 7 (IV) (c) of the Court-fees Act. While a fixed court – fees of Rs. 30/ – is payable for the relief of declaration the relief of injunction needs to be valued separately u/s. 7 (IV) (d) and court – fees will be paid as per that value.

       6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order directing the plaintiffs to pay ad – valorem court – fees is set – aside. The valuation and the court – fees paid by the plaintiffs are held to be in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to the costs of this petition.