Skip to content


Sm. Gita Debi Bajoria Vs. Harish Chandra Saw Mill and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1013 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Cal202
ActsCourt-Fees Act, 1870 - Section 7
AppellantSm. Gita Debi Bajoria
RespondentHarish Chandra Saw Mill and ors.
Appellant AdvocateRam Prosad Sas, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateLala Hemanta Kumar and ;Narattom Chatterjee, Advs. for Nos. 1 to 7
Cases ReferredUmarannessa Bibi v. Jamirannessa Bibi
Excerpt:
- .....to file deficit court fees within a certain time. the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that certain documents were not binding on her and were null and void upon the footing that they were not documents, intelligently executed by her. the suit was valued in the plaint at rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs claiming that she was not obliged to make, in the circumstances, any prayer except for a declaration, as noted above, and she paid a court-fee of rs. 20/- on the plaint, treating it as a declaratory suit. the above position was contested by the defendant but the learned additional subordinate judge was of the view that the suit was one, governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the court-fees act, and that, for the purpose of court-fees.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner against an order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge fixing the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees at Rs. 15,000/- and directing amendment of plaint and register accordingly and directing the petitioner-plaintiff to file deficit court fees within a certain time. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that certain documents were not binding on her and were null and void upon the footing that they were not documents, intelligently executed by her. The suit was valued in the plaint at Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs claiming that she was not obliged to make, in the circumstances, any prayer except for a declaration, as noted above, and she paid a court-fee of Rs. 20/- on the plaint, treating it as a declaratory suit. The above position was contested by the defendant but the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was of the view that the suit was one, governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, and that, for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction, the value should be Rs. 15,000/-and, accordingly, he directed necessary amendments of the plaint and register and further directed the plaintiff to put in the deficit court-fees on that basis. We have looked into the plaint and we are satisfied that, whatever other defects the plaint may be suffering from, the question of court-fees on the plaint, as it stands, should be decided in favour of the plaintiff. On the plaintiff's allegations in the plaint, she was in possession of the disputed property and the only thing she needed was a declaration that the impugned documents were null and void and of no effect, pleading, in substance, that they were not her documents at all.

2. In the view of the matter, we are inclined to hold, on the authority of the decision of this Court, reported in Umarannessa Bibi v. Jamirannessa Bibi, 37 Cal LJ 499 = (AIR 1923 Cal 362), that, on the plaint, as it stands, the court-fees, paid by the plaintiff, should be accepted as sufficient.

3. We would, accordingly, make this Rule absolute, set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, and direct that the issue of court-fees be decided in the plaintiff's favour and the suit will proceed on that footing in accordance with law.

4. Let the disposal of the suit be expedited as much as possible and let it be disposed of, if possible, within a year from this date.

5. Let the records go down to the Court below as quickly as possible.

There will be no order for costs in this Rule.


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