1973 (8) TMI 173 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal competent: rejection under Order VII, r.11 is a decree; fee based on substance; s.100 CPC remedies preserved

SHAMSHER SINGH Versus RAJINDER PRASHAD & ORS.

SC held the appeal competent, rejecting the preliminary objection and confirming that rejection of a plaint under Order VII, r.11 is a decree attracting ... - Issues:1. Competency of the present appeal based on court-fee payment.2. Determination of court-fee based on the nature of relief sought.3. Interpretation of substantive relief in a suit for declaration.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court addressed the competency of the appeal concerning court-fee payment. The Court clarified that the observations in a previous case regarding court-fee payment were specific to the facts of that case. It was emphasized that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code constitutes a decree, providing a right of appeal to the plaintiff. The Court also noted that in cases where special leave is granted, the question of appealability does not arise. Additionally, a second appeal could be filed under section 100 of the CPC for questions of law, thus rejecting the preliminary objection raised.2. The Court delved into the determination of court-fee based on the relief sought in the plaint. It was highlighted that while the court-fee payable is decided based on the allegations and prayers in the plaint, the court must consider the substantive relief being sought. The Court emphasized that the substance of the relief, not just the form or language used, should guide the assessment of court-fee. In cases where a declaration is sought with consequential relief, the court-fee must reflect the value of the relief. The judgment cited precedents to support the principle that a suit may involve consequential relief even if the relief is framed declaratorily, especially in matters involving joint family property and mortgage decrees.3. The Court extensively analyzed the interpretation of substantive relief in a suit for a declaration. It referenced various judgments to establish that seeking a declaration that a decree is not binding inherently involves a request for setting aside the decree, thus constituting consequential relief. The Court rejected previous decisions that did not consider the implications of Hindu Law on mortgage decrees obtained against a father. It was emphasized that in such cases, seeking a declaration of non-binding status on the son's part effectively entails seeking the cancellation of the decree. The Court scrutinized past judgments to establish the correct legal position regarding the nature of relief sought in suits involving family property and mortgage decrees, ultimately allowing the appeal and directing the plaintiffs to pay the necessary court fee within a specified timeframe.