Unknown vs Manoj
2023 Latest Caselaw 2415 UK

                                      1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                        AT NAINITAL

              SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.


                              August 23, 2023

               Appeal from Order No. 274 of 2009
Between:

Gurucharan Singh                                ........Appellant/Plaintiff

And

Manoj Kumar and others                          ...............Respondents


Counsel for the appellant:     Mr. Narendra Bali, counsel for the appellant.

Counsel for the respondent:    Mr. Nikhil Singhal, counsel for the respondents


Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court made the following
JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 06.07.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (S/D)/1st FTC, Haridwar, in Original Suit No. 75 of 2006, Gurucharan Vs. Manoj, whereby the learned Civil Judge (S/D)/1st FTC, Haridwar, directed the appellant to pay Court Fees as per Section 7(a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, for seeking relief of taking possession over the property in dispute.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present Appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a Original Suit No. 75 of 2006, before the learned Civil Judge (S/D)/1st FTC, Haridwar, wherein a relief was sought in the nature of mandatory injunction

against the defendant nos. 1 to 3, who are the respondents herein, for restraining them from interfering in his possession and remove the unauthorized constructions from the property in question and handover the possession to the plaintiff.

4. I have perused the Original Suit No. 75 of 2006, wherein the following reliefs were sought, the extract of which is being reproduced as under:

"v- �ारा िडकी �ाई िनषेधा�ा बहक वादी बर�खलाफ प्रितवादी न० 1 ता 3 इस आशय से सादर फरमाई जावे िक प्रितवादीगण न 1 ता 3 स�ि� िन�विण�त म� वादी के क�ा का

प्रयोग, उपभाग म� कोई ह��ेप ना कर�, ना करावे

ब- यह िक िडकी मे�ेटरी इनजं�न बहक वादी बर�खलाफ प्रितवादीगण इस आशय से सािदर फरमाई जाय� िक प्रितवादीगण अंदर िमयाद अदालत वादग्र� स�ि� से अनािधकृत

िनमा�ण / मलबा हटाकर स�ि� का क�ा वादी को सौंप द�।

स- अ� सहायता जो राय अदालत मुनािसब समझे वादी को प्रितवादीगण से िदलाया जावे।

n- हजा� खचा� वादी को प्रितवादीगण न० 1 ता 3 से िदलाया जावे"

5. It is pleaded in the plaint that earlier the owner of the property in question was one Charandas S/o Parmanand, whose name was entered into the revenue records and thereafter, in place of Charandas, the name of his son Ramakant was entered, and Ramakant gave a power of attorney to one Shri Sukhdev Singh S/o Charan Singh, R/o Vikas Colony BHEL, Ranipur, District Haridwar, and on this Power of Attorney the rights were given to Sukhdev Singh on the property, the observation of which, is enclosed in the plaint disclosed in the Map (Naksha Nazari) marked as 'A', 'B', 'C" and 'D'. It is further pleaded in the plaint that Sukhdev Singh, the Power of Attorney holder executed a lease-deed in favour of the plaintiff and one Surendra Singh and since 06.04.2002, the

plaintiffs are in possession. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have no concern with the property in question and neither they are owner nor are in possession. It is further pleaded in the plaint that a boundary wall was constructed over the property, which was leased out on 06.04.2002, however, the defendants are intended to take the possession over the property in question. It is further pleaded in para 8 of the plaint that on 14.02.2006, the defendant no. 1 to 3 came with common intention to take possession but could not succeed to get possession, however, they threatened to take possession over the property in question anyhow.

6. After institution of the aforesaid suit, an application was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 Read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiff in the aforesaid Suit for seeking the amendment to the plaint with this statement of fact that the possession has been taken over by the defendants during pendency of the suit. The Application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, was numbered as 105Ka-1, was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (S/D)/1st FTC, Haridwar, by order dated 29.04.2009 holding that the amendment sought to be incorporated by the plaintiff, however the burden of same lies upon the plaintiff, which is the subject matter of evidence. The certified copy of the order dated 29.04.2009 is placed on record by the respondents by way of a supplementary affidavit. The order dated 29.04.2009 attained finality therefore, the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the

possession was taken over by the defendants during the pendency of the suit.

7. The order passed by learned Civil Judge (S/D)/ 1st FTC, Haridwar, dated 29.04.2009, on an application of the plaintiff under Order 4 Rule 17 red with Section 151 CPC, is being reproduced herein below:

" 29-4-09

पुकार कराई गई। उभय प� के िव�ान अिधव�ागण उप��त आये।

प्राथ�ना पत्र 105क1 व उसकी आपि� 106 ग2 पर सुना । वादी �ारा

प्राथ�ना पत्र 105का आदेश 6 िनयम 17 व धारा 151 जा�ा दीवानी के तहत इस आशय का प्र�ुत िकया गया है िक प्रितवादीगण ने बजोम सरकशी

वादग्र� स�ि� पर िनमा�ण कर अवैध क�ा कर िलया। िजस पर दखल िदलाया जाना आव�क है।

इस पर प्रितवादी �ारा आपि� जताई गई तथा यह कथन िकया गया िक प्रितवादी ने अपने जवाब दावे से िदया था, तभी से उसने �ायालय म� बात रखी �ई है िक स�ि� का क�ा उसके पास चला आता है और वत�मान म� भी उसी

का क�ा है और इसका �ान वादी को शु� से ही है, उसने यह प्राथ�ना पत्र िम�ा कथनों पर प्र�ुत िकया है। साथ ही मौ�खक बहस मे यह बताया है िक

वादी ने अपने बयानों म� इस बात को माना भी है िक बाद योिजत करने से पूव� प्रितवादी का क�ा प्र�गत स�ि� पर चला आता है।

सुना तथा पत्रावली पर उपल� प्रपत्रों का अवलोकन िकया। िकसी भी

वाद पत्र या संशोधन �ारा कहे गये कथनों को सािबत करने का भार उसी ��� पर होता है जो ��� वै कथन �ायालय के सम� रखना चाहता है। उपरो� बाद म� वादी �ारा जो संशोधन चाहा गया है वह वादी को ही सािबत करना होगा िक िजस स�ि� के क�े को प्रितवादी शु� से अपने पास होने की बात कहकर

आ रहा है, वह क�ा प्रितवादी के पास शु� से नहीं, ब�� दौरान बाद �आ है।

इसके अित�र� बयानों म� वादी ने िकस बात को माना है, और �ा

कथन �ीकार िकये ह�, वे सभी वादी के उपर ही िवपरीत प्रभाव डालेगे, अगर वह वादी के बाद मंत्र के कथनों के िव�� कहे गये ह� और ये सब िनण�य का िवषय

है। संशोधन लाये जाने से मात्र वादी कुछ त�ों को �ायालय के सम� रख सकता है, पर�ु उनका सही सािबत िकया जाना अित आव�क है, नाममात्र कह

देने से इस बात को मान िलया जाये िक क�ा दौरान वाद प्रितवादी के पास

आया है।

इस सिलये मात्र संशोधन प्राथ�ना पत्र िदये जाने से प्रितवादी पर इसका

कोई प्रभाव पडता है, यह सब कथन सा� से सािबत िकया जाना वादी के िलये अ�ंत आव�क है। इसिलये वादी के इन कथनों से वाद की प्रकृित भी नहीं

बदलती है। अतः प्राथ�ना पत्र हज� पर �ीकार िकये जाने यो� है।"

8. After allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the order passed on Amendment Application were carried out in the plaint and the relief "Ba", which was incorporated after the amendment is being also reproduced as under:

"9 (अ)- यह िक दौरान मुकदमा प्रितवादीगण ने बजोम सरकसी जबरद�ी वाद ग्र� स�ि� पर अनािधकृत िनमा�ण कर क�ा अवैध कर िलया

िजसका उसे काई अिधकार प्रा� नही था"

9 (ब)- यह िक िडकी मे�ेटरी इनजे�न बहक वादी बर�खलाफ

प्रितवादीगण इस आशय से सािदर फरमाई जाये िक प्रितवादीगण अंदर िमयाद

अदालत वादग्र� स�ित से अनािधकृत िनमा�ण / मलबा हटाकर स�ि� का क�ा दादी को सौंप द�।

9. In the said suit, the issue framed to this extent that whether for taking the possession by way of mandatory injunction, the court fee is paid as per Section 7 (a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, or is insufficient. The said issue as framed was decided by the learned Civil Judge, (S/D)/1st FTC, Haridwar, by order dated 06.07.2009, whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay the court fee for the relief of possession as per Section 7(a) of the Act on the valuation of the property in question and not on relief of mandatory injunction. This issue has been decided by the learned Civil Judge (S/D)/ 1st FTC, Haridwar, in respect of relief "B", which was incorporated in the plaint pursuant to the order

dated 29.04.2009, whereby the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, was allowed.

10. I have perused the order dated 06.07.2009, which is under challenge and the relevant extract of which, in fact, the basis for determination of the court fee, is being extracted herein below:

"वादी के इस अनुतोष से �� है िक वादी िववािदत स�ि� पर अपना क�ा पाना चाहता है उस पर बने िनमा�ण को �� कराना चाहता है। पत्रावली म� वादी के बयान भी हो चुके ह� और वादी ने अपने बयान म� �यं इस बात को माना है िक बाद योिजत करने से पूव� ही इस स�ि� पर प्रितवादी का क�ा हो चुका था। िजससे ��

है िक जब वादी �ारा बाद योिजत िकया गया, उस समय वादी का इस स�ि� पर क�ा नहीं था, और वादी अब इस स�ि� पर अपना क�ा प्रा� करना चाहता है।

ऐसे म� वादी ने मे�ेटरी की आड म� क�ा के अनुसरण म� �ायशु� U;k;ky; esa

अदा करना, चािहए था, जबिक वादी ने मे�ेटरी िनषेधा�ा के आधार पर केoल मात्र

500- �पये �ायशु� �ायालय म� अदा िकया है जबिक कोट� फीस ए� के तहत

स�ि� पर क�ा प्रा� करने के िलये स�ि� की पूण� कीमत पर �ायशु� देय होता है। "

11. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Narendra Bali submits that the order passed by the learned court below is against the provisions of the Court Fee Act, 1870, and the relief 'B' as sought by way of amendment is in the nature of mandatory injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the finding as drawn by the learned court below regarding the court fee on the value of the property in question, is wholly illegal since the amended relief, i.e., relief 'B' sought by the appellant/plaintiff is in the nature of mandatory injunction against the defendants- respondents for recovery of possession, and, as per the provisions of the Court Fee Act, 1870, the valuation on the mandatory injunction is Rs.500/-.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Nikhil Singhal submits that by way of the amendment, as sought by the plaintiff/appellant, which was allowed by the learned court below by order dated 29.04.2009, nature of the suit is changed and, therefore, the court fee should be paid on the value of the property in question. Mr. Nikhil Singhal further submits that the plaintiff in his statement admits that the defendants were in possession over the property in question before the institution of the suit. In support of his submission Mr. Nikhil Singhal argued that as it appears from the order passed by learned Civil Judge (S/D)/ 1st FTC, Haridwar dated 06.07.2009, the learned court below clearly observed and drew a conclusion that the relief of possession is being sought under the garb of mandatory injunction as the plaintiff admits on his statement that the defendants were in possession over the property in question before the institution of the suit and, therefore, the court fee, is payable as per the valuation of the property in question. Mr. Nikhil Singhal supports the order impugned and submits that under the garb of relief of mandatory injunction, the plaintiff wants to take the possession of the property in question.

13. I have perused the order impugned passed in the plaint and the amendment as carried out in the plaint. The court fee is payable on the basis of the pleadings of the plaint. How much the court fee is payable cannot be decided on the basis of the statement of the parties, particularly, the statement of the plaintiff. The statement of either of the parties has to be considered at the stage of final adjudication of the suit but the statement cannot

be taken into consideration for determination of the court fee.

14. On perusal of the amendment of the plaint, it is nowhere admitted by the plaintiff that the defendants were in possession over the property in question before the institution of the suit. On perusal of the order impugned, which is under challenge in the present appeal, it appears that the issue no. 9 has been determined by the learned court below on the basis of the statement of plaintiff though what would be the court fee for institution of a suit that will be determined on the basis of the relief sought in the plaint. While determining the court fee, the statement of either of the parties cannot be taken into consideration and only the nature of relief and the statement of fact as pleaded in the plaint, is to be taken into consideration. Learned Civil Judge while determining the issue no. 9, which pertains to the court fee after the amendment of the plaint is totally unsustainable since the issue of court fee has been determined on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff.

15. Mr. Nikhil Singhal, who appears for the respondents has placed before this Court the judgement rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1039 of 2001, U.P. State Electricity Board and others vs. Maharaja Manvendra Shah (since deceased) through LRs. decided on 08.12.2008, reported in 2009 (1) U.D.,95. He has placed reliance on para 8 of this judgment and for ready reference

para 8 of this judgement is being reproduced hereunder:

"Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in para 3 and 4 of the plaint it has been clearly pleaded by the plaintiff that defendants no. 1 to 4 are raising the constructions through defendant no. 5 after encroaching upon the land, as such, the plaintiff should have sought relief of possession and they cannot get possession under the garb of mandatory injunction which can only be granted to present the breach of an obligation that too when it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts as provided under Section 39 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963. I do agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that it is unhealthy practice to seek the relief of possession under the garb of relief of injunction and thereby causing loss to the public exchequer by not paying the court fee for the relief of possession which is higher to the one payable for the relief of injunction. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, after going through the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice the plaintiff can be directed to pay the court fee for the relief of possession before the decree is sought to be executed."

16. I have gone through the observations of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It appears from the said judgment that the issue of court fee was determined on the basis of the plaint. Here in the present case, in the amended plaint, there is no such statement or statement of facts that the defendants-respondents were in possession over the property in question before the institution of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents gives

reference of the order dated 29.04.2009, whereby the amendment was allowed and submits that this order was never been challenged and by giving reference of this order, Mr. Nikhil Singhal submits that the plaintiff himself on his statement admitted that the defendants took over possession of the property in question before institution of the suit.

17. This court is not convinced with the arguments of Mr. Nikhil Singhal. In my opinion, the issue of court fee should be determined on the basis of the plaint of the suit and not on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff. The statement of the plaintiff has to be seen at the time of final adjudication of the suit, but not for determination of the court fee.

18. Learned court below while passing the order impugned totally failed to consider the mandate of the Court Fee Act, 1870, that the court fee should be determined on the basis of the relief sought and not on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff, which is after institution of the suit. Here, in the present case, when the suit was filed, a mandatory injunction was sought in the suit, but due to the subsequent events, the amendment was sought and by way of the amendment, the possession over the property in question was sought. In the amended plaint, there is no such any pleadings or statements of fact to this effect, from which, it reveals that the plaintiff admitted that before institution of the suit, the defendants were already in possession.

19. The learned Civil Judge while passing the order impugned totally failed to apply its mind by

directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee on the valuation of the property. Since by way of the amendment, the plaintiff wants possession over the property in question, and therefore, as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff should pay the court fee for the relief of possession as per Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

20. In view of the observations as above, the instant appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S/D)/1st FTC, Haridwar, dated 06.07.2009 in Original Suit No. 75 of 2006, Gurucharan vs. Manoj, is set aside. The plaintiff is directed to pay the court fee for the relief of possession in respect of the property in question as per Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. No order as to costs.

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Kaushal