Skip to content


Chunia and anr. Vs. Ram Dial and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All360
AppellantChunia and anr.
RespondentRam Dial and anr.
Excerpt:
.....17 (iii) - suit for a declaratory decree--consequential relief--decision of questions relating to valuation--appeal. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are..........arises. we therefore overrule the objection and entertain the appeal.2. it appears to us that the appellant correctly contends he seeks a declaration of right and no consequential relief. the civil procedure code declares that a person against whom an order is passed under section 246 may bring a suit to establish his right. if he obtains a decree in such a suit, he will then present himself to the court executing the decree by which the order was made, and that court will be bound to recognize the right declared, and either withdraw or order attachment as the case may be. we set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and remand the case to that court for decision on the merits. costs of this appeal to abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. It is contended by the respondents that the Court is bound by the provisions of Section 12 of the Court Fees Act and cannot determine whether this suit is one in which specific relief is sought or not, so as to determine under what class of cases it falls for the purpose of the Court Fees Act. We observe, and it has been so held in the Calcutta Court see Ganga Monee Chowdhrain v. Gopal Chunder Roy 19 W.R. 214 that Section 12 of the Court Fees Act prohibits appeals on questions 'relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee.' There is no question of valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee raised in the appeal before us, for if the appellant is right in his contention, a special and certain fee is fixed for all suits of the nature of the present suit, and no question of valuation arises. We therefore overrule the objection and entertain the appeal.

2. It appears to us that the appellant correctly contends he seeks a declaration of right and no consequential relief. The Civil Procedure Code declares that a person against whom an order is passed under Section 246 may bring a suit to establish his right. If he obtains a decree in such a suit, he will then present himself to the Court executing the decree by which the order was made, and that Court will be bound to recognize the right declared, and either withdraw or order attachment as the case may be. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court, and remand the case to that Court for decision on the merits. Costs of this appeal to abide and follow the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //