TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (10) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 17. Therefore, the plaintiffs pray that a Declaration decree to the effect' with costs of the suit be passed in favor of the Ram Sanahi Sect. that the said alleged Will was not executed and could not be executed by the said Mahant Narsingh Dass and that the said Will is void, and illegal which confers no right or title whatsoever on the defendants in Ramdwara and the property, etc., attached to if as detailed above and the money of the Ramdwara and consequently the said defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering in the possession of the Ramdwara and the property and cash attached to it which vests in the entire Ram Sanahi Kharapa Sect." (4) In paragraph 16, the plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction at ₹ 200 and affixed the court-fee of ₹ 19.50 on the plaint. (5) The prayer in paragraph 17 of the plaint was made on the following material allegations. (6) It was averred that the plaintiffs are members of Ram Sanahi Kharapa Sect (hereinafter referred to as "the Sect") which comprises of innumerable persons. There is a Ramdwara . known as "Chhota Ram Dwara" which belongs t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mahant Narsingh Dass in respect of the aforesaid Ramdwara and the properties attached to it and some moneys deposited by the late Mahant in his own name in a bank which belonged to the said Ramdwara and were acquired and accumulated from the income of the said Ramdwara. (12) It is claimed that the alleged will dated 14-5-1964 and registered on 15-5-1964 is absolutely void and illegal document which could not be executed by the late Mahant in favor of the defendants as he was not competent to do so under the law, custom and usage of the said Sect. The due execution of the will was also challenged. (13) It was thus averred that the defendants, on the basis of the aforesaid will, proclaimed themselves as the owners of the said Ramdwara along with the properties attached to it as well as the cash- balance mentioned above. (14) The defendants inter alias challenged the valuation of the suit fixed by the plaintiffs for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction. The trial court framed the following issue : " WHETHER the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?" (15) The parties led evidence on this issue. (16) The trial court after examining the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge to the will and treat the suit as purely for permanent injunction covered by Section 7(iv)(D) of the Court-Fees Act. (21) We have already noticed the material averments in the plaint. Whether the suit is purely for permanent injunction is a matter of construction of plaint in each case. But in construing the plaint, the court has to look at the substance of the plaint rather than its mere form. If, on the whole and in substance, the suit appears to ask for some relief as stated, yet the court can look at the substance of the relief. It is clear from even one form that the suit is for declaration coupled with the consequential relief. But, we are to go into the substance of the plaint rather than mere form. In construing the substance of the plaint, it will be noticed that the plaintiffs do not claim to be in possession of the properties in dispute. (22) The trial court has found that the defendants are in possession of Ramdwara partly through self-occupation and substantially through their tenants. The relief for injunction as prayed cannot be granted to the plaintiffs unless the obstacle in the way is removed. The obstacle is the will which is sought to be challenged by way. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The prayer for declaration will be surplusage if the plaintiff can get the relief. for injunction without praying for declaration. But the declaration has to be prayed where an obstacle has to be removed before the plaintiff can claim the relief of injunction simpliciter. (27) We have, Therefore, to examine whether, in the present case, the plaintiffs have to remove any obstacle out of their way before they can claim the relief of injunction. The plaintiffs do not deny that the defendants claim to be 'mahants' on the basis of the Will. As they are Mahants, they are entitled to manage the same and retain the possession. The prayer of permanent injunction simplicities "from interfering in the possession of Ramdwara and the property and cash" cannot, Therefore, be granted on the plaintiff's own averments. As mahants, the defendants are entitled to possession as well as management. For depriving them of their possession, the plaintiffs have sought the declaration that the will executed in their favor by the previous mahant is void and illegal and does not confer any right or title on the defendants in the Ramdwara or the properties attached to it. So long as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... speaking for the full Bench explained the meaning of the expression "consequential relief" in Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. The Bench held: " The expression 'consequential relief in Art. 7 (iv) (c) means some relief, which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable ef being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a 'substantial relief." (35) We are in complete agreement with the meaning of the expression "consequential relief" given by the aforesaid full Bench decision. (36) The aforesaid full Bench in the case of Mt. Zeb-ul-Nissa further observed: "INa suit for a declaration that a deed or a decree is null and void neither the answer to the question whether the plaintiff is or is not a party to the decree or the deed sought to be declared as null and void, nor to the question whether the declaration sought does or does not fall within the purview of S. 42, Specific Relief Act, furnishes a satisfactory or conclusive test for determining the court- fee. payable. "The true....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation.-See observations in This absolute right has. however, been curtailed by the aforesaid second proviso if it is applicable. (41) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the material words in the second proviso, so far as the present case is concerned, are "where the relief sought is with reference to any property". It was submitted that the relief sought in the present case is not "with reference to any property". The argument of the learned counsel was that the declaration sought is in respect of a will which is not property within the meaning of the proviso. (42) In this connection, the learned counsel referred us to the decision of the Division Bench in where Andley, J. (as his Lordship then was) and one of us, took the view that the second proviso will apply only to such suits which are with reference to any property if the valuation of the suit can be calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7 and thus the Division Bench took the view that it will apply but only to immovable property referred to in clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Division Bench (supra). Mack, J. who spoke for the Bench was at pains to point out that no decision or adjudication is required as to the parties title to the property or the respective rights to possession. The relief was purely one directed personally against the mortgages from doing an act which they had been authorised to do under the mortgage-deed by reason of power vested in them under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. (52) Again, in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) B. C. Misra, J. was dealing with respect to the validity of a decree for money and. Therefore, in any case the proviso did not apply. (53) The question arises as to what are those properties and whether they are covered within the meaning of the word ''property" as stated in the proviso. As noticed earlier, in the averments in the plaint, the property covered by the will relates to immovable property of Ramdwara and the properties attached thereto as well as agricultural land and cash. It is the title to these properties which the defendants claim by virtue of the will which is being disputed by the plaintiffs. The immovable property and the agricultural land are certainly properties wit....