TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Will in question on the ground that the same is a result of misrepresentation, undue influence and is fictitious, not made voluntarily and one Baljinder Pal Singh Brar, Advocate who is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, exercised undue influence upon Raja who also left to Maharani Mohinder Kaur, his mother who was alive at the time of execution of the Will. It is further alleged that the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and is most unnatural. Raja who was Jat Sikh by caste was governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 after the merger of the State of the Union of India. 3. It is not necessary for me to go into the various grounds attacking the Will and creation of Trust because the short question for adjudication before me is with regard to the quantum of court fee leviable on the claim set up in the plaints. 4. In the suit filed by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, she has claimed the following reliefs:- 1. Issue a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner to the extent of ⅓rd share in the properties, the details whereof are given in Annexure 1 and that the plaintiff is deemed to be in joint possession of the said properties alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction and the plaintiff is required to first assess the market value of the suit property correctly and then make up the deficiency in court fee. Against the said order, present civil revisions have been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the property and she has claimed simpliciter declaration regarding deemed joint possession by way of present suit and that defendants in their written statements have admitted that property known as Fairy Cottage (Country Club) situated in Bir Chahal, Tehsil and District Faridkot, Flat No. 32 Rivera Apartment, The Mall, Delhi and one another property stand vested in a declaratory Trust known as Faridkot Ruling Family Housing Trust created by the late owner Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur KCSI and the beneficiaries of this Trust are all the three daughters of the settlers and the said properties are in possession of the beneficiaries. He contended that in view of this admission, defendants stand precluded from agitating that the plaintiff is out of possession of the properties and require to pay court fee on the market value of the properties in disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) : 2000 (2) PLR 382 because in such suits cancellation of the documents is necessary to be sought which falls within the definition of consequential relief. 9. Section 7 of the Court Fee Act deals with computation of court fee payable in certain suits. Sub-section (iv) of said section reads as under:- (iv) in suits- (a) for moveable property of no market value. - for moveable property where the subject matter has no market value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title. (b) to enforce a right to share in joint family property.- to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property, (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.-to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed. (d) for injunction-to obtain an injunction. (e) for easement-for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and (f) for accounts.-for accounts. according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which the values the relief sought for: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleadings of the defendant. The application of any particular clause of court fee depends upon the substance of the plaint and not on mere word used in the plaint and further nothing should be imported into the plaint which it does not contain actually or by necessary implication. Plaintiff has every right to insist that the court fee should be assessed on the basis of which he has framed his plaint although there might be room for suspicion that the plaint has been so drafted as to avoid inconvenient facts and payment of higher court fee. Reference in this regard may be made to law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 wherein it was held that the question of court fees must be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas raised in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. 12. If the first argument raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff that defendants have admitted in written statement that plaintiff is in joint possession of some property is examined in the light of law laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Iqbal Kaur v. Chanan Singh, 1978 RLR 62 and Joginder Singh v. Major Singh, 1983 PLR 225 has held that in such suits court fee is leviable under Section 7(iv)(c). The claim set up in the present suit if examined in light of the judgment of Full Bench and the judgments rendered by this Court is the above referred to cases, it is evident that the present suit is not simpliciter suit for declaration, joint possession and injunction but the one which falls under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act and court fee on the memorandum of suit is leviable as provided under Section 7(v) of the Act. 15. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. The question raised by Mr. Sarin that the present civil revision is not maintainable, is not necessary to be gone into. 16. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff urged that his client may be allowed to amend the plaint so as to omit the consequential reliefs claimed by her. In this regard, he moved civil miscellaneous application No. 15829-CII-2001 filing therewith copy of the amended plaint. Mr. Sarin opposed the said application saying that simpliciter suit for declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
