1 W.P. No. 15055 Of 2010 21.1.2014 Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

With consent of learned counsel for parties, the matter is heard finally.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 17.9.2010 passed by II Additional District Judge, Rewa in civil Suit No. 2A/2010; whereby, while allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by respondent/defendant, the petitioner/ plaintiff has been directed to pay the ad valorem court fee.

Suit at the instance of petitioner is for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of Araji No. 3573/1 area 0.83 acres situates at Mohalla Amahiya Rewa, Tahsil Huzur, district Rewa on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of suit land since 195556. The petitioner/plaintiff has affixed fixed court fee.

The respondent on being noticed raised preliminary objection by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC that since declaration of ownership having been sought over the suit land, the petitioner/plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit land. Trial Court allowed the application and has directed the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of agreement of sale. 2 In the suit filed by the petitioner, following relief has been claimed: ';g fd oknh ds gd esa fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; dh fMdzh ikfjr o izlkfjr dh tk;].fd vkjkth IykV ua0 3573@1 jdok 0-83 ,dM+ ,oa ml ij fLFkr fuekZ.k edkukr ,oa Ms;jh].'ksM fLFkr eksgYyk vefg;k jhok].rglhy gqtwj].ftyk&jhok ¼e0iz0½ dk ekfyd LoRo/kkjh oknh gSA fpjLFkk;h fu'ks/kkKk }kjk izfroknhx.k euk fd;s tk;sa fd os Lo;a ;k vius vfHkdrkZ].ukSdj&pkdj ,oa fdlh vf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls oknh ds Md.IykV ua0 3573@1 jdok 0-83 ,dM+ ,oa ml ij fLFkr fuekZ.k edku].Ms;jh].'ksM ds crkSj ekfyd oknh ds dCtk n[ky 'kkfUriw.kZ mi;ksx].miHkksx ds laca/k esa dksbZ gLr{ksi u djsa].u djk;saA ' Trite it is that the question of court fees has to be determined on the plaint as framed.

(Please see Sathappa Chettiar versus Ramanathan Chettiar :AIR 1958 SC 245 and Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and others : AIR 1973 SC 2384).Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides for: 7.Computation of fees payable in certain suits The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief : to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed,' In the case at hand, since the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, the consequential relief to the extent of permanent injunction is being sought. Therefore, the liability of the petitioner/plaintiff is to affix the Court fee as per value in suit and not on the basis of the value of property nor on 3 the value of agreement of sale.

As the ownership is being claimed on the basis of long possession and not the agreement of sale.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the Trial Court was not justified in directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee.

Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside.

In the result petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi