IN THE HON»I^ifeHIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W.P. (UNDER ARTICLE 227) No. f2> / 2.2. /2008 PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS ^\-c/~' ^ V I ^^' ^rSS"' ^w /' y / ^'' ^ *..•.-' \<.'? k>> ^' ^ 1. Shankar Lal Chandrakar, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shri Ramashray Chandrakar, R/o ViUage-Daukldih, Post-Matwari, Tahsil-Gunderdehi, District-Durg (C.G.) 2. Laxmikant Chandrakar, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Shri Chunnilal Chandrakar, R/o vmage-Anda, TahsH 85 District- Durg (C.G.) 3. ' Kamalkant Chandrakar, aged about 33 years, S/o Late Shri Chunnilal Chandrakar, R/o Quarter No. 30, Near Jai Ambey Gas Godam, Chandra Nagar Kohka, Tahsil & District-Durg (C.G.) 4. Smt. Ishwari Bai Chandrakar, f aged about 61 3^ears, W/o Late Shri Chunnilal Chandrakar, R/o Quarter No. 30, Near Jai Ambey Gas Godam, Chandra Nagar Kohka, TahsU &, District-Durg (C.G.) 5. '' Smt. Pushpa Chandrakar, aged about 44 years, W/o Shri Pntam Chandrakar, R/o Mudhkhushra, TahsU-Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) 6. Smt. Nilima Chandrakar, aged about 31 years, W/o Shri Vishvanath Chandrakar, R/o Quarter No. 14 C, B-Pocket Marauda Sector BhUai, Tahsil & District-Durg (C.G.) 7. Smt. Shanti Bai, aged about 68 years, W/o Shatrughan Prasad, R/o ViUage-Anda, TahsU &. District-Durg (C.G.) ^> l^ RESPQNDENTS/ DEFENDANTS ^^^ 8. Smt. Janki Bai, aged about 66 years, W/o Shri Gopal Prasad, R/o vmage-Kuthrel, TahsU & District- Durg (C.G.) 9. Smt. Indrani Bai, aged about 61 years, W/o Shri Arjun Prasad, R/o vmage-Donar, TahsH & District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 107 Smt. Radhika Bai, aged about 56 years, W/o Shri Ramsharan Chandrakar, R/o VUlage-Bemcha, TahsU & District-Mahasamund (C.G.) 11. Smt. Viinla Bai, aged about 51 years, W/o Shri Saatkumar Chandrakar, R/o House No. D-40, Tagore Nagar, Sector-1, Near Water Tunkey, TahsU & District- Raipur (C.G.) 12. Smt. NIrmla Chandrakar, aged about 49 years, Wd/o Late Shri Bajrang, R/o ViUage-Donar, Tahsil & District-Dhamtari (C.G.) 13. Smt. Satrupa Chandrakar, aged about 48 years, W/o Shri Bah-am Chandrakar, R/o Village- Kachandur, Tahsil-Gunderdehi, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Tajendra Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Kirtilal Chandrakar, R/o VUlage- Daukiditi, Post Office-Matwari, Tahsil-Gunderdehi, District-Durg (C.G.) Kirtilal Chandrakar, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Shri Ramashray Chaadrakar, R/o Village- Daukidih, P.0. Matwari, TahsH- Gunderdehi, District-Durg (C.G.) Sunil Kumar Chandrakar, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Shri Ramashray, R/o ViIlage-Daukidih, P.0. Mafrwari, Tahsil-Gunderdehi, District-Durg (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through : CoUector, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THB CONSTITU330N OF INDIA ^ti^i ^r'fe^N? 'OTT^it^T^lN^ <WN^(T %»HI<»» ?^r "'•ii^ic'i^, yTil<H<i(o, r5>i<ni-H<j,< ^^^..c^^?....^^..-^200 ^) ^T^T^^ (^jf^^) i^?W^ft?l 3ilt^T S.B. H<mihte Shri Justice P^K. 29.06.2009 Shri Prateek Sharma, Adv^ Shri Shashank Thakur, Adj Ms. Sangeeta Mishm,Pan^ The petitioners, being 27.03.2008 (Annexure P/7), pas^ ^Rt^T^ W^ °?ft^ iN^R -^^RrHW^i Aearwal >cate for the petitioners. rocate for the respondent No. 1&3. ;1 Lawyer for the State. aggrieved by the order (teted |ed by the VIIth Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg, in civil suit^o. 2-A/2007, dircctmg the plaintiff to pay proper court fee, has prefe^red this petition. In brief, the facts necessal plaintiffmstituted acivU suit cla| the suit land, prayed for decl 21.05.02 and WiU-deed dated ry for present petition are that, the Imed to be owner and titSe holder of aration that the Sale-deed dated 26.04.02 be declared void and ineffective, and defendant did n<|»tget any title over the swt land in pursuance of said Will-deed a|nd Sale-deed, and also relief of injunction prohibiting the defentlant No. 1 fr©mmterfering in the possession ofplaintiffs' and defe^idant No. 3. ^ ^ ^[Rrf^ ^^T ^UK^ <l^-<i^(M—FS/95—1 3 /2008—1,00,000. T ^^y^t;'-"-^-./.. 1 ^NF ^^i^ '7^ ^i<4i<vi^, ^Ti1-H4i<o, f®i<ni-H^< 'WJWiR'^lN? ' '"""^200^ '3?R¥1^^.( ^f^^) 'HR^f "^ 'fe^> ipsii^K ^^^^I^T The trial court, vide order impugned held that court fees ought to have been paidon Rs. 4,57,60fl)/- i.e. Rs. 54,760/- and directed the plaintiffs to pay the same. Shri Shanna submits Ifaat lis per plaiat allegation the suit has been properly valued for the pur|pose of declaration and fixed court fee has been paid thereupon an^ for the purpose of injunction suit has been valued Rs. 300/- for th^t separate court fee has be^i paid thereupon. He further submits ifiat reli©fof mjuaction claiming in the suit is not flowing from the relief of declaration and is independent for the reliefofdecl^ratioa, A bare reading ofplamt w<|)uld reveal that reliefafdeclaa'ation can be claimed independently of| injunction and therefore, the court fee has been paid in terms of Secfion 7(iv) (d) ofthe Courts Fee Act, but the finding recorded by Ae tfial court seems to be tfaat tfae court ^w^^^ ^"ii^ <^Rf^rra—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000. ^}? /fs: "m '^l'^iTO it^l^^N? NIWIT ^»N(€|i -3^T ^t<41<>1<4, ^Tll-H^Ko, [s|<ni-H'4,< ^^M.L>.>£)......3:!>1^...•^200^ ^I^T ^^T.( ^C8l^«8<^) ¥^?W^f^? ^II^l 3 the records. Core question invol ofinjunction can be said to be fli '^pfe^N 'HP^f "^ fe^ <[^t$8< i?^tRR311^¥[ fee ought to have paid by t(ie petitioner in accwdance with provisions contained in Section ^(iv) (c) ofthe Courts Fee Act. Shri Thakur, leamed couns|iel appearing for the respoadent No. 1 & 3 supported the order and !|aid that the order has been rigfetly passed by the trial court. I have heard leamed couns^l appearing for the parties, perused ed in th©case is that whether relief wing from the reliefofdeclaration or is an independent relief. If i^e relief is independent relie^ then certainly the court fee paid by thej plaintiffis correct. The true test for ascertainii|ig whether tiie consequential relief in fact flows from the declaratob^ relief is as to whether the sai4 consequential rieliefcan be claimfsd independently oftfae declaration as a substantial relief or not. Every injunction in a suit for declaration would not follow froib the declaration. In a case where plaintiff is in possession of the jiroperty in his OWH rights, comes ^W^^^ ^uil^ <M-1i^lM—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000. .,^>?^^, ^^^. // j 1. ^.J/ ^r^i^T-^NT ^i ^IR^T'^iI^ ~5^ ^WW^, ^-^WW, fsldl^^i »^) ^(^^ <IW^ff'^NJ«b wiioot ^IT^i^^ (tq^q^?) I^lW^fi^3^¥l -^ - before the court and seeks decl4mtion that the property belongs to him and tiie other party cannot |nterfere with his possession then it cannot be said thatplaintiffrequi|red to pay the ad valorem court fees because the relief of injunctic|n is a consequential relief. As observed above the relief of itijunction if can independently he claimed then in every case it wojuld not be a consequ^itial relief. It is settled law that if a person isj mjunction is not a consequence) favour ofthe plamtiffthen too favour of the person who is in MadhyaPradesh25). ^T^fel^ ^TR^f "ff fe^ ipsi^K ^•31^1 W^T in settled possession he eannot be evicted except in accordance wjith law. Such a persoti if claims a declaration of his title and ijnjunction that the defendants be restrained fiom interfering witl^ fais possession then the relief of ofthe declaration because even if the court is of the opinion that| the deelaratioa eaanot be made m (he eourt will grant an inJBnction in Isettled possession. (See AIR 1997 ^ra^l ^^T S^TT^r il^^i^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. 1 T I %^fc. 1 ^o' s '3^T "^I^Kn^, ^Tll-H^Ko, M(vll'(-l*4,< *J8*S<»IT ?S»*1N?.../^.4^ ^(^^ •"•^•"""•"••"•••••-^ioog 'w^r Tra^>.(i^Is^^?) ^ji^i'^r'M^ ^T^I^l'^lN?' w^ii' o Sahu fNnd In the case in hands, it is |separately and relief of injunction ^ to the relief of declaration and thelefore, jplaihtifiThas been valued for the ^urpose ofinjunctit he^efore, in the ease in haads, the pu|pose ofdeclaration and for the mrpose ofinjunction rightly. In view of above, order pasjsed by the court below is not (ustified and deserves to be set asid^. It is aecordingly set aside. It (s held that the plaintiff bas properjy valued the suit and has paid proper court fee. The petition is allolved. No order as to costs. -^j^l^ "^?^f ^a fe^t ife^R •^-a^iftH a?iit^r that relief can be claimed Fould not b©consequential relief Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^W^ ^^T^u|(^<l^i^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.