Substance over form in court fee: a declaration against a father's mortgage decree was held to require consequential relief and ad valorem fee.

Court-fee liability depends on the substance of the relief, not its wording. A coparcener's suit seeking a declaration that a mortgage decree against the father is not binding on him was treated as one involving consequential relief because, under Hindu law, the decree's effect on the sons had to be neutralised to stop execution against family property. The suit was therefore not a bare declaration and attracted ad valorem court fee. The preliminary objection to maintainability failed, and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit by a coparcener seeking a declaration that a mortgage decree obtained against the father is not binding on him is, in substance, a suit for consequential relief requiring ad valorem court fee; and whether the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal was sustainable.

Analysis: The court-fee payable on a plaint must be determined from the substance of the relief claimed, not merely from the form or language used in drafting. Where a joint Hindu family mortgage or decree obtained against the father is binding on the sons by operation of Hindu law, a prayer that such decree is not binding on the sons necessarily implies that the decree must be set aside or neutralised as against them. In such a case the suit is not a bare declaration, because the declaratory relief carries with it the practical consequence of preventing execution of the decree against the family property. The authorities relied upon by the respondents were distinguished or disapproved to the extent they overlooked the effect of Hindu law on the binding nature of the father's decree against the sons.

Conclusion: The suit involved consequential relief and attracted ad valorem court fee; the preliminary objection failed and the appeal succeeded.

---