Keshar Bai vs Shaligram - 1993 Supreme(MP) 745

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
K.G. Maheshwari for applicants; Ramgopal and Upadhyaya for non-applicants.

Headnote:Court Fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) and Sch. II, Art. 17 -- amount deposited in Court -- suit for title to obtain that amount is enough -- relief of perpetual injunction is not consequential but incidental -- advalorem Court-fees not required under S. 7 (iv) (c).
        U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 & /kkjk 7 (iv) (c) rFkk vuqlwph 2 vuqPNsn 17 & jde U;k;ky esa fuf{kIr & mDr izkIr djus ds fy, gd dk okn i;kZIr gS & ‘kk‘or O;kns‘k dk vuqrks"k ifj.kfed ugha gs vfirq vkuqkafxd gS /kkjk 7 (iv) (c) ds v/khu ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl visf{kr ugha gSA
        Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that agricultural land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the amount of award, as a result of reference under S. 18 of the aforesaid Act was deposited in the reference Court. The dispute arose between the applicant plaintiffs and non-applicant nos. 1 to 4/defendants as to the right to receive the compensation so deposited. The compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer (N.A. no. 6). As a result of the aforesaid controversy, the applicants instituted the suit claiming relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction to restrain the N.A. nos. 1 to 4 to receive the compensation as deposited and held by the Court to be paid to the persons entitled to receive the same. In this suit, the N.A. moved the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code contending that the suit was barred by law and that ad valorem court-fee was required to be paid on the basis of the amount of compensation. On hearing the parties the trial Court rejected the plea of bar but accepted the prayer that ad valorem court-fee was required to be paid on the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 75,674/-, by order dated 9.10.92, impugned in this revision petition. It is this order which is under challenge in this revision petition.
        The trial Court held that the Court fee was payable and leviable in terms of Sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fee Act as the nature of reliefs, as claimed, was one of declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the dependents from receiving or withdrawing the amount of compensation, awarded under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as deposited by Land Acquisition Officer (N.A. no. 6) in the Reference Court.
        Held: In 1960 JLJ 131 (N), it is held that
        "The position of law is quite clear that Court fees is not to be paid when a declaratory decree is sought in respect of an amount which is lying in deposit in a Court or with the Collector."
        The amount is payable to the person who is found entitled to it. Mere declaration is sufficient. Court fee under Schedule II, Art. 17 is proper.
        In 1988 MPLJ 246 it is laid down that
        "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 case is incidental or distinct and separate and therefore, the suit is not governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act and as ad valorem court-fee on the relief of injunction was not payable. This relief of injunction stands separately valued by the petitioners. I find that the petitioners have paid proper Court-fees."
        The trial Court has erroneously held that the relief of injunction in such a case was consequential to the relief of declaration. As to what is consequential relief, it has been stated thus in Durg Singhs case 1982 IV SN 72, that
        "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, is a consequential relief and on refusal to grant the declaration, the other relief is also liable to be refused. Here in the present case, if the alleged document, said to have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, is declared a nullity, the plaintiff automatically gets the title to the land in dispute and it would be wholly unnecessary for her to claim a further relief of declaration of her title." Luculently, the direction about additional court-fee cannot be sustained in law. In the instant case, the relief of injunction was incidental, distinct or separate and was not taxable on ad valorem basis. In fact, it is redundant. I am thus, satisfied that the applicants have paid proper court-fees on the plaint. 1960 JU 131 and 1988 MPU 246 relied on. Revision allowed.