The principle of assessment of court fee is that the principle of assessment of court fee : High court of Calcutta
The principle of assessment of court fee is that the principle of assessment of court fee : High court of Calcutta
The principle of assessment of court fee is that plaintiff asked for a declaration with the consequential relief he is bound to pay ad valorem fees proportional to the loss from which he seeks to be released. The principal to be followed is to ascertain the substance of the relief claimed and not the form of the language of the plane. A suit for cancellation of a deed is not one for declaration in order to avoid payment of ad valorem court fee, the relief of cancellation is often couched in the form of a declaration that the deed is void or is not binding on the plaintiff or that the d does not affect the plaintiffs interest. In such cases, if the cancellation of or avoiding the effect of the leaders implicit in the declaration site for Section 7 would apply comp. However there will be situation where the plaintiff name not be required to ask for cancellation of the documents. No such relief can be employed if the plaintiff is not required to have the deep understanding or set aside or to avoid the effect of the deed. A 3rd party need not so for cancellation. Even when those plaintiff seeing a party to the deed alleges that it was not executed by him but it was forged one need not seek consequential relief of cancellation, is upheld by the high court of Calcutta, by the learned bench of the Honourable Justice Soumen Sen, in the case of Sri Umapada Jati and others V. Sri Manas Jati and others, C.O. No. 4601 of 2015.
FACTS
In the plaint, it is alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant No.7 and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs executed a registered deed of sale on 14th August, 2012 which was subsequently registered on 16th August, 2012 in respect of entire “C” schedule property in favour of the defendant Nos.8 to 15. The said deed was executed in abuse of the power vested with the defendant Nos.1 to 6 including the defendant No.7 and is a sham transaction. The defendant Nos.8 to 15 including Bakula Jati since deceased did not acquire any right, title and interest over the “C” schedule property on the strength of such fraudulent deed. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have been in possession over the “C” schedule property excepting a portion thereof which is described in schedule “D” as the plaintiffs settled the property in the defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.8 to 15 including Bakula Jati since deceased thereafter sold about 7 decimal of land described as ‘E’ schedule property in 1 (one) Dag being old Dag No.1023 Hal Dag No.1089 in favour of defendant No.16 which was subsequently registered on 23rd March, 2013. The said deed is illegal, void as the earlier deed executed in favour of the defendant Nos.8 to 16 is fraudulent and void. It is alleged that the defendant No.15 who is a subsequent transferee in respect of “E” schedule property did not get any physical possession over and in respect of “E” schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 15 including Bakula Jati since deceased and defendant No.16 by reason of execution of fraudulent documents are trying to create a cloud upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property and to remove such cloud, a decree for declaration as well as a decree for permanent injunction is necessary as the defendant Nos.8 to 15 are trying to create obstruction and disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over and in respect of the “C” schedule property.
JUDGEMENT
The court laid out that there cannot be any doubt that for the purpose of jurisdiction the valuation would be the same as for the court-fees in view of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Though the plaintiff is entitled to put its own valuation for the reliefs claimed in a suit coming under Section 7(iv)(b), it cannot put any arbitrary valuation of his own and the valuation so put would be subject to revision by the court under Section 11 of the Court fees Act which provides that if the Court is of opinion that the subject matter of any suit has been wrongly valued it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such enquiry as it may think necessary for such purpose. It is well-settled by the court that the valuation is to be determined on the basis of the plaintiff’s pleading and with reference to the relief claimed by the plaintiff. It is also established that if there is no objective standard of valuation of the relief, notwithstanding the power of the Court to revise the valuation, the Court will not do so for the simple reason that the Court would have no material before it from which it can adjudge the valuation as given by the plaintiff to be erroneous. How far the plaintiff’s claim would succeed or the extent to which relief claimed would be admissible is not the criterion of valuation is determined by the court. The court laid out that if the value of the entire relief claimed in the plaint can be assessed and found out that would be the value of the relief irrespective of to what extent such relief would be admissible to the plaintiff on final adjudication.
Click here to view the judgement