^a' m^' 1 ,1.1 f.:i ^ €\f ^ % w^ 0-..t^ :^^# I fl 1 ^ 5 S°i n-St i iS .:l-'t: i 1 ,lg m ^ ^ m .'N :-?' Q i^-' r^: 11''^ a» '® l^"t: m ^ 1 'm- .€§:'. is^'^ 5'.;^,.^- ^:51:i;^ ^.^i.I, ;;4y^ ly, :..0:; ^ II s," ^ '? »a ^"•- ^ '•f::'^ o':. o,;-^. ^^ I "^^. '"^^ ^..^^ ^ ^o^ o^ :^^te ^IIi sa w:^'4 m^m ^ :^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR )i^il RevisionNo. 50of 2003 PETITIONER/ Plaintiff RESPONDENT/ Defendant B.S.P. Employees Society Limited VERSUS Co-operative Nagar PalikaNigam Bhilai ^ Post for pronouncement on 11 /12/2011 Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge 1^/12/2011 ^. •-:f- ^- .^- f- ^) HIGHCbURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR PETITIONER/ Plaintiff RESPONDENT/ Defendant CivilRevision No. 50 of 2003 B.S.P. Employees Society Limited VERSUS Co-operative Nagar Palika Nigam Bhilai (Revisioh Under Section 115 ofCodaofCivil ^Prpcedure) SB: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J. Present : Shri VG Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satyawan Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT I (DeliveredonJ^JI 2/2011) 1. Plaintiff/applicant, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2003, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 4-A/02, directing the plaintiff/applicantto pay proper court fee, has preferred this revision. 2. Brief facts necessary for the present revision are that : the plajntjff claiming to be owner of the suit property, prayed for declaration that plaintiff has perfected its title over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. For the purpose of declaration, the plaintiff valued the suit for Rs. 18,80,00/-, however, paid fixed court fee under llnd Schedule, Article 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short 'the Act'). The plaintiff also prayed for relief of injunction for retraining the defendant from interfering in its possession over the suit property. Without valuing the suit for the relief of injunction, plaintiff paid fixed court fee ofRs. 5QO/- for grant of injunction. H'? L! .i: .^- ^' 3. Vide impugned order, the trial court directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem courtfee onRs. 18,80,000/- i.e. the value ofthe suit for the reli^f of declaration. Hence this revision. 4. Shri VG Tamaskar, learnedcounsel appearing for the applicant placing hisl reliance upon the judgment of Supreme CQurt in case of Siihrid Singh'@ Sardool Singh v. RandhirSingh & Others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2807, judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Suresh & Others v. Chand and Others, reported in AIR2007 Allahabad 113, judgments of MP High Court in case of Laxmikan Dube & Others v. Smt. Piyaria and Others, reported in 2002 (1) MPHT 133, MP State Electricity Board and anotherv. Smt. KamlaSharma& Others, reported in 2003 (3) MPHT434, Raj Kaurw/oGarumukh Singh Randhawa v. M/s Kinetic Gallery and another, reported in2000 (2) MPLJ 72 and Omprakash and others v. Suratram and others, reported in 1994 MPLJ 291, contended plaintiff is inpossession ofsuit property, relief of injunction is not consequential but is independent relief, forrelief ofdeclaFation a fixed court fee of Rs. 500/- has been paid under Schedule II of Article 17 of the Act and for relief of injunction separate court feeof Rs. 500/-has been paid, thus, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in directing the plaintiff to pay ad-velorem court fee on Rs. 18,80,000/-. 5. On the other hand, Shri Satyawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order and submitted in the facts andcircumstances ofthe case, the relief -^ x ^- 6. 7. 8. 9. of injuncti^n is a consequential reliefon which as per Section 7(iv)(c) of| the Act, ad-valorem court fee is payable and order impugnedjdo not suffer fromany jurisdictional illegality. 1 have heardthe counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including recordsofthe case. It is well settled that the question of court fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced by the pleas in the written statement, or by final decision of the suit on merits and ultimately if it is found plaintiff is not in possession, legal/settled possession or in adverse possession of the suit property, the suit may be liable to be dismissed. The expression "consequential relief' means some reliefwhich would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided foranywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of declaration as a "substantial relief'. True test for ascertaining whether the consequential relief in fact flows from the declaratory relief is as to whether the said consequential relief can be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantial relief or not. Every injunction in a suit for declaration would not follow from the declaration. In a case where plaintiffisin possession ofthe propertyin his own rights, comes before the court and seeks declaration that the property belongs to him and seeks declaration that he is the owner of the property and the other partycannot interfere with ../-' ^- ^- his possession, then, it cannot be said that plaintiff is required to pay ad-valorem court fee because the relief of injunction is a consequential relief. The relief of injunction, if can indepen;dently be claimed then in every case it would not be a conseqiliential relief. •I 10. It is seftled law that if a person is in settled possession he cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. Such a person ifclaims a declaration of his title and injunction that that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession then the relief of injunction is not a consequence of the declaration because even if the court is of the opinion that the declaration cannot be made in favourofthe plaintiffthen too the court may grant injunction who isin settled possession till he is evicted by due process of law. Such a person would be called upon to value both the reliefs separately and each of the reliefs would be independent of the other. In a suit of this nature the plaintiff is not seeking the relief of injunction as consequentialrelief but is entitled to claim the same because of his settled possession. In such a case, Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act would be applicable for valuing the relief of injunction and Article 17of Schedule II of the Act would provide the court fee for the said declaration. 11. Plaintiff has brought the suit for declaration of his title on the premise, he is in adverse possession of the suit property since 42 years, and injunction that defendant be restrained from interferingwith his possession. Therefore, the relief of injunction /f^ I ^""'11 X. i... JJ .yK 1 ^. ^" is not consequence of the declaration even ifthe courtis ofthe opinion ithat the declaration cannot be made in favour of the plaintiff then too the courtmay grant injunctionwho is allegedly in settled possession as per plaint averment till he is evicted by due process of law. 12. In view of above, the trial court went wrong in holding the relief of injunction as consequential and in directing the plaintiff to pay proper court fee accordingly. However, a bare perusal of the plaint would reveal the plaintiff has not valued the suit for the relief of injunction at all and he has only paid the court fee of Rs. 500/-. Under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act, plaintiff is atliberty to put his own valuationon such a reliefof course, it should not be wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision is allowed, the order impugned, being not sustainable in law, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass appropriate order in the light of observations made hereinabove after giving opportunity to the plaintiffto value the suit for the purpose of relief of injunction and to pay court fee accordingly. 14. No order as tocosts. II Sd/- II N. K. Agarwal 1; Judge | Sahu