Ashok v. Narasingh Rao, AIR 1975

Introduction

The case of Ashok v. Narasingh Rao, AIR 1975, is a significant judgment concerning the interpretation of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. This section deals with suits seeking declaratory relief with consequential relief and the appropriate court fee payable in such cases. The core issue revolves around whether a plaintiff, who claims a decree is void due to fraud, but does not explicitly seek to set it aside, is liable to pay ad valorem court fees.

Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff, Ashok, filed a suit challenging a compromise decree from a prior case involving the same parties.
• He alleged that the decree was fraudulently obtained by his mother while he was a minor and that it should not bind him.
• In the present suit, he only sought declaratory relief, asking the court to declare the earlier decree as ineffective and void, without seeking the consequential relief of setting aside the decree.
• He paid only a fixed court fee applicable to declaratory suits.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the plaintiff’s suit seeking only declaratory relief without praying to set aside the decree is maintainable?
2. Whether the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fees under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act?

Case History

The Trial Court held that:

• A suit for mere declaration was not maintainable in this context.
• Since the plaintiff's rights were affected by the previous decree, he should have also sought consequential relief (i.e., to set aside the decree).
• Therefore, ad valorem court fees were payable.
• The plaintiff filed a revision petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, arguing that the decree was not binding on him and hence, there was no need to seek to set it aside.

High Court's Ratio Decidendi

 The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the revision petition, providing the following reasoning:

1. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 2384, which emphasized that courts must look at the substance of the plaint and not merely its form when determining court fees.
2. The High Court observed that:
1. Although the plaintiff claimed the decree was not binding, it remained effective until declared otherwise by a competent court.
2. Therefore, the decree continued to affect the plaintiff’s rights, making it necessary to treat the relief as substantially both declaratory and consequential.
3. Accordingly, under Section 7(iv)(c), the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court fees based on the value of the property affected.

Final Decision

The Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that:

1. The suit, in substance, sought to set aside the decree, even if not explicitly stated.
2. Therefore, the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fees under Schedule I, and not a fixed fee under Schedule II.
3. The revision petition was dismissed.