The appellants, who were sons and daughters of Jaikishun Lal, filed a suit against the first respondent in the Court of the Munsif 1st, Gaya.
They alleged that Jaikishun Lal, their father, purchased the suit property from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 30-4-1960.
The first respondent became a tenant of the suit property under a "Kirayanama" executed in favour of Jaikishun Lal, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs 90.
The appellants claimed to be the owners of the property and sought eviction of the first respondent, who was in arrears of rent and needed the property for personal use.
The suit was valued at Rs. 1080 for jurisdiction and court fees based on the monthly rent of the house.
The first respondent moved a petition in the trial court, stating that the appellants cannot proceed with the lawsuit unless they pay ad valorem court fees on the market value of the property.
The trial court: I am of the opinion that the Court has to decide title, not incidentally but in a full-fledged manner. Under such circumstances, in view of the reported decision in Sheo Shankar Prasad v. Barhan Mistry the plaintiffs have to pay ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property.
Appellant carried the matter to Patna High Court by way of a civil revision application, where the court dismissed the revision.
From the order thereon the appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.
ISSUE
Whether the appellants were required to pay ad valorem court fees on the market value of the suit property, as ordered by the trial court, instead of the court fees based on the monthly rent.
RULE
The purpose of determining court fees, the character of the suit is determined solely based on the relief sought in the plaint, regardless of the defences raised in the written statement or the final decision on the merits.
HELD
The Sheo Shankar Prasad v. Barhan Mistry [1985 PLJR 358] case provides that before the Court goes into the question of title not incidentally, but in a full-fledged manner the plaintiff should be asked to pay ad valorem court fee.
In Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar [AIR 1958 SC 245], this Court noted that the question of court fees had to be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint.
The Court held that for the purpose of court fees, the character of the suit is determined by the relief sought in the plaint, irrespective of the defences raised in the written statement or the final decision on the merits.
The suit in question sought the relief of eviction based on the appellants' claim of being landlords and the first respondent being a tenant in arrears of rent.
Therefore, the suit could only be valued as an eviction suit, regardless of the first respondent's denial of the appellant's title to the property.
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court, and dismissing the petition seeking payment of ad valorem court fees on the market value of the suit property.