ASHOK V. NARASINGH RAO AIR 1975 MP 39

ASHOK V. NARASINGH RAO AIR 1975 MP 39

FACTS

• Earlier a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was instituted by Narasingh Rao (now defendant No.1) against the plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 to 8. 
• In that suit, the plaintiff was described as a minor and Kishan defendant No.3 was appointed as guardian ad litem
• The plaintiff challenged a compromise decree obtained in that previous suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.
• The plaintiff alleged that he had attained majority during the previous suit and was misrepresented to be a minor under the guardianship of his mother (defendant No.5).
• The plaintiff sought a declaration that the decree was null and void due to fraud perpetrated by his mother.
• The trial Court has held that the suit for mere declaration is not maintainable. It was necessary for the plaintiff to claim consequential relief of setting aside the decree and further that the plaintiff had to pay ad valorem court fees. 
• Therefore, present revision petition against the trial court judgment.

ISSUE

• Whether the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court fees for the relief sought.

RULE

• The plaintiff must pay proper ad valorem court fees as the relief sought in the suit, although framed as a declaration, implied setting aside the decree passed against him in the earlier suit.

HELD

• The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad [AIR 1973 SC 2384], which stated that the court should look into the substance of the relief sought rather than the form of the relief in the plaint.
• It was held that even though the plaintiff was a defendant in the earlier suit, the decree passed against him was binding until set aside by a competent court.
• Since the relief sought implied setting aside the decree, the suit fell within the dictum of the Supreme Court, requiring ad valorem court fees.
• The revision was dismissed.