1982 Supreme(MP) 606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. N. SHUKLA, J.
Sanik Nagar Durga G. N. 5 Samiti - Appellant
Versus
Indore City Improvement Trust - Respondent
C. R. No. 428 of 1981 (I)
Decided on : 03-08-1982

Headnote:Court-fees Act, 1870 – S. 7 (iv) (c), (d) & 7 (v) – suit for declaration of title and preventive injunction – relief of injunction not consequential to declaration – suit falls under S. 7 (v) r/w S. 7 (iv) (d) – ad – valorem Court – fees not payable.

        Short Note

       1. A few material facts may be stated : Plaintiff applicant filed a suit for declaration that it was the owner of the suit property and was in possession thereof. It also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants non – applicants from starting any construction scheme over (he suit land. For the purpose of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 50,000/ – . However, Court – fees of Rs. 30/ – was paid for the relief of declaration and of Rs. 30/ – for injunction. The defendants non – applicants raised an objection about the adequacy of the Court – fees and urged that ad valoram Court fees on the market value of the suit property at Rs. 50,000/ – was payable.

       2. The Court below held that the case was governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act because the plaintiff had sought declaration of title and consequential relief and, therefore, ad valorem Court – fees was payable on the consequential relief so sought.

       3. Held : It will appear from the pleadings in the plaint that plaintiff claimed to be owner as also in possession of the suit land. On this basis it claimed two distinct reliefs, one for declaration of title and the other for preventive injunction. The relief of injunction in fact was not consequential to the relief of declaration because even without claiming the declaration relief, plaintiff could have brought the suit on the same pleadings seeking the relief of injunction only. These were two distinct and separate reliefs. The relief of injunction though related to the question of plaintiff's title, was not consequential to the declaration. The suit will, therefore, fall under Article 17 (v) of Schedule II read with section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court-fees Act. (See Straw Products Ltd. v. The Municipal Board Bhopal, 1959 JLJ 513).

       4. The applicability of section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court-fees Act was considered in some detail by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mahant purshottam Dass v. Har Narain (AIR 1978 Delhi 114). Referring to the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Mst. Zebunnisa v. Din Mohammad (AIR 1941 Lah. 97) which has been considered and has received the approval of the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad (AIR 1973 SC 2384), their Lordships observed : –

       "The expression 'consequential relief' in section 7 (iv) (c) means some relief, which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained anywhere in the Act and cannot be Claimed independently of the declaration as a 'substantial relief."

       5. Applying this test the Delhi High Court observed that a suit where the relief of declaration is incidental or distinct from the relief of injunction the same for the purpose of Court – fees will be governed by section 7(iv) (d) of the Act.

       6. It is thus clear that ad valorem Court – fees on the relief of injunction was not payable and plaintiff's valuation of the relief and the suit was proper. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order holding that ad valorem Court – fees was payable on the value of the land at Rs, 50,000/ – is set aside. 1959 JLJ 513, AIR 1978 Delhi 114 and AIR 1973 SC 2384 relied on.

       Revision allowed.