Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4767 = 1965 SLD 4767 = 1965 PLD 439
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 727 of 1961, decided on 21st August 1964.  
Presented By: K. M. Hasan, A. Sattar and A. M. Sayem, JJ
  Bishan Sarup v. Musa Mal and others A I R. 1935 All. 817 rel.   Suresh Chandra Bose, Rajendra Kumar Banik and Nasiruddin Choudhry for Petitioner.   Asaduzzaman Khan for the Opposite-Party No. 1.   Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury for the Opposite-Party No. 2.   Syed A. B. Mahmood Hussain, Senior Government Pleader for the State.

DAIBAKILAL BASAK-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  IQBAL AHMED QURAISHI AND ANOTHER-Opposite-Parties  

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 39,42

Law: Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)

Section: 7(iv),7(c),II,17(iii)

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),   S. 39-Suit for mere declaration that document is void ab initio and of no legal effect-Court while granting declaration not bound also to order cancellation of document unless such further relief specifically prayed for by plaintiff-Plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees for relief of cancellation which is consequential relief within meaning of S. 7 (iv) (c), Court-Fees Act (VII of 1870). [pp. 443, 450, 452, 458]A, B, D, E & F   (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),   Ss. 42 & 39 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c) & Sch. II, Art. 17(iii) Suit for bare declaration that document was forged void ab initio and of no legal consequence-Court-fees payable on such suit under Art. 17(iii), Sch. II of Court-Fees Act--Suit whether falls under S. 42 or S. 39 of Speck Relief Act, 1877-Plaintiff not necessarily to pray for consequential relief by way of cancellation of document-Plaintiff cannot be held to have made such a prayer by necessary implication. In a declaratory suit, the plaintiff, asserting possession through tenants, alleged that certain registered documents purporting to have been executed and registered by him, were really executed by another person falsely personating as the plaintiff and prayed for declaration:   "(a) that the documents as described in the Schedule "A" below are void ab initio and that the defendants have acquired no interest in the suit premises by virtue of the aforesaid documents;   (b) that the documents mentioned in the Schedule "A" below have been brought into existence by forgeries and false personations and that no consideration did pass by the said documents."   The plaintiff had valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 30,000 and had paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 20 claiming the suit to be for a simple declaratory decree to which the provision of Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Court-Fees Act, 1870 applied. The trial Court, however, took the view that had the relief asked for ended with the first part of prayer (a) namely, for a declaration that the documents in question were void ab…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register