| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2077 1961 SLD 2077 = 1961 PLD 191 |
Dacca High Court
Second Appeal No. 421 of 1955, decided on 7th March 58.91
Presented By: Nandi, J
Upendra Kumar Roy for Appellant. T. Talukdar for
Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 421 of 1955, decided on 7th March 58.91
Presented By: Nandi, J
Upendra Kumar Roy for Appellant. T. Talukdar for
Respondents.
ABDUL MANNAF-Appellant
VERSUS
ABDUL HAQUE TALUKDAR AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Court-Fees Act, 1870
Section: Sch. II, Art. 17 (iii)
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)------ ------ Sch. II, Art. 17 (iii)-Determining nature of suit for purpose of Court-fees-Substance of plaint rather than form in which reliefs are couched is to be looked into--Suit for declaration with redundant added relief-Plaintiff should not be burdened with additional Court-fees -Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42. The reliefs that are prayed for in a suit are not always the criteria by which a correct decision can be arrived at as to whether it comes under one category or the other of suits for purposes of Court-fee ; It is the substance of the plaint that is to be looked into. If, for example, the plaintiff prays, firstly, for a declaration that money is due to him from the defendant, and secondly, prays for recovery of that money, the second relief cannot be treated as a consequential relief flowing from the first relief and the plaintiff will have to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the amount of money he seeks to recover. If, on the contrary, the plaintiff unnecessarily burdens his plaint with reliefs which he need not seek, he should not be punished by imposition of higher Court-fees than he is to pay under the Court Fees Act, 1870. Where, therefore, the plaintiff's suit was one for declaration of his title in properties auction-purchased by him with an added prayer which was absolutely redundant, the Court-fees paid as provided for in Article 17 (iii), Schedule 11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, was held to be adequate. Deokali Koer v. Kedar Nath I L R 39 Cal. 704 held not applicable. Phul Kumari v.'Ghanashyam Misra 12 C W N 169 P C; Tewari Kora v. Bhupat Mandar 50 I C 298 ; Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd. v. Secretary of State for India I L R 44 Cal. 352 ; Midnapur Zemindari Co. Ltd. v. Secretary of State A I R 1929 P C 286 and Raja Promoda Nath Ray v. Asiruddin Mondal 15 C W N 896 ref. JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiff raises a question as to the proper Court-fees that is to be paid by the plaintiff on the plaint. The trial Court took the view that the prayers made in the plaint bring the suit withinthe provisions of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees…