Skip to content


Tika Ram and ors. Vs. Salig Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All158; 57Ind.Cas.494
AppellantTika Ram and ors.
RespondentSalig Ram and anr.
Cases ReferredDhakeswar Prasad Singh v. Jioo Choudhry
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), section 7(v)(b) - suit by hindu, reversioners for declaration and possession--nature of suit--court-fee payable. - - the plaintiff in that case had to secure the setting aside of that sale before he could get possession of the properly, and he came into court alleging that that sale was bad on the ground of fraud. he, therefore, bad to sue for a declaration with a consequential relief in the present case the plaintiffs were not bound to pray for a declaration with a consequential relief......and musammat gomti, the widow of the predeceased son of behari, joined together in executing a sale deed of a certain portion of the property. it is this property which the present plaintiffs seek to recover. their plea is that musammat gomti had no power whatsoever to sell under any circumstances and musammat mohan knnwar had no power to sell as there was no legal necessity. as a matter of actual fact the plaintiffs did ask in their plaint that the sale-deed be declared null and void as against them and the possession of the property be granted to them. suits of this nature are very common and they have always been treated as ordinary suits for possession of property and court-fee is paid on five limes the government revenue. it is unnecessary for the plaintiffs really in the suit.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Tudball, J.

1. This is a suit by Hindu reversioners for possession of an estate left by their cousins, Bhagwan and Behari. Bhagwan died leaving a widow, Musammat Mohan Kunwar. Behari died leaving behind him only the widow of his pre-deceased son. Musammat Mohan Kunwar and Musammat Gomti, the widow of the predeceased son of Behari, joined together in executing a sale deed of a certain portion of the property. It is this property which the present plaintiffs seek to recover. Their plea is that Musammat Gomti had no power whatsoever to sell under any circumstances and Musammat Mohan Knnwar had no power to sell as there was no legal necessity. As a matter of actual fact the plaintiffs did ask in their plaint that the sale-deed be declared null and void as against them and the possession of the property be granted to them. Suits of this nature are very common and they have always been treated as ordinary suits for possession of property and Court-fee is paid on five limes the Government revenue. It is unnecessary for the plaintiffs really in the suit to ask for any declaration in respect to the sale-deed executed by Musammat Mohan Kunwar. It is open to them to treat that sale-deed as null and void and as having been carried out by persona without legal power. Tae Taxing Officer has referred this matter to me on the basis of a decision to be found in the case of Dhakeswar Prasad Singh v. Jioo Choudhry 46 Ind. Cas. 385 : 3 P.L.J. 448. That decision, however, is not quite applicable to the present case, There an estate had been sold for arrears of Government revenue. The plaintiff in that case had to secure the setting aside of that sale before he could get possession of the properly, and he came into Court alleging that that sale was bad on the ground of fraud. He, therefore, bad to sue for a declaration with a consequential relief in the present case the plaintiffs were not bound to pray for a declaration with a consequential relief. This was an ordinary suit for possession on the basis of title, and it was for the defendants to come forward as they actually did, and establish a valid sale in their favour by the Hindu widow.

2. Under these circumstances the Court-fee paid in this case is correct and no further Court-fee is necessary from the present defendant appellant.


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