TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 395 dated 27.4.2000 Aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2001, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed present revision petition. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the issues raised in this revision petition are that a civil suit No. 530-C of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the sale deeds on various grounds. A declaration was sought to the effect that the sale deed No. 420 dated 28.4.2000 made by defendant-respondent No. 1 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 2 regarding the part of the suit land is liable to be set aside as the same is result of mis-representation and concealment of facts. It was also prayed that the other sale deed No. 395 dated 27.4.2000 executed by defendant-respondent No. 1 in favo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of record, it has been observed that in the present case plaintiff has challenged two sale deeds dated 28.4.2000 and 27.4.2060 as both the sale deeds were executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendants No. 2 & 3. The plea of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 had executed the above said sale deeds in favour of the defendants No. 1 & 3 because there was no legal necessity to alienate the suit property. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on Gurjeewan Singh's case (supra). It was a case where suit was filed by son for declaration challenging alienations made by the father on the ground of being without legal necessity and without consideration. The plaintiff being the member of the joint Hindu Family has a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel and perused the record with his assistance. I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The provisions of section 7(iv)(c) of the Act may be referred in order to ascertain the statutory intention in cases where a declaration for setting aside the sale deed has been sought. section 7(iv)(c) of the Act reads as under: "for declaratory decree and consequential relief. - to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed." 5. A perusal of clause (c) makes it obvious that whenever a suit has been filed for grant of declaratory decree or order wherein consequential relief is prayed then the Court fee ad valorem is required to be paid. Thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claration that the decree against his father does not affect his interest in the family property, consequential relief was involved and ad valorem Court-fee was necessary. On the other hand, there may be cases, where the declaration asked for is merely a suplusage and the so-called consequential relief is in reality an independent substantial relief. For instance, if a person sues for a declaration that the defendant is liable to pay him money due on a certain bond and also asks for recovery of the amount, or asks for a declaration that he is the owner of the certain property and entitled to its possession and asks for possession of the property, the reliefs for the recovery of the amount or for possession cannot properly be treated as cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claration as to such rights cannot convert a suit for a substantive relief into one for a declaratory decree where consequential relief is prayed for within the meaning of section 7(iv)(c), Court-fee Act. It is significant that the valuation of the relief in cases falling within the scope of section 7(iv)(c) is left to the plaintiff. This is presumably because the 'consequential relief' contemplated by the section is some ancillary relief to which the plaintiff becomes entitled as a necessary result of the declaration, but for which no separate provision is made in the Act. The essence of the relief in such cases lies in the declaratory part and the consequential relief being merely an auxiliary equitable relief, its valuation seems to have....