# STATE OF U.P v. RAM KRISHAN BURMAN (DEAD) BY L. RS. & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 588
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-09-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 444 of 1966
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-u-p-v-ram-krishan-burman-dead-by-l-rs-ors-4923
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), s. 7 (iv·.'1) inserted by U.P.
Legislature-A decree for a mere declaration of title to properi,y whether
a der;ree 'for money or other property' or an 'instrument securing rhoney
or ot~er property' within meaning of section-Undesirability of prolonging
litigation by_ roising pleas without merit.
A
B
As the reversioner of a Hindu widow's estate one 'R' instituted suit
C
No. 4 of 1950 in the court of the Civil Judge Jaunpur, for a declaration
that he was the 'owner in possession' of the said estate. 'B' who claimed
to be an heir of the widvw was impleaded as a party defendant. The
suit was decreed ex-parte. 'B' then filed suit No. 14 of 1956 in the same
court against the heits of 'R' who died after the passing of the dettee in
his suit. In suit No. 14 of 1956 'B' claimed that as heir of the said widow
he was entitled to her stridhana properties. He averred that in suit No. 4
D
of 1950 'R' had arrived at an oral compromise with him promising him
5/!6th share in the, .whole estate; that the oral compromise was later
reduced into a memorandum; that 'R' had represented to him that
a
compromise decree would be obtained_ in the suit; and that takiiig advan~
tage of his ignorance 'R' had obtained an ex-parte decree against him.
On these allegations 'B' prayed that he be declared the owner of all the
properties left by the widow, and in the alternative he be declared owner
of her stridhan properties, the decree in sujt No. 4 of 1950 having no
E
adverse effect on his rights. On the footing that he had claimed a mere
decl~ration 'B' paid Rs. 18/12/- as court-fees as in a claim under Sch. II
cl. !?(iii) of the Court Fees Act. The Inspector of Stamps, however,
reported to the Qvil Judge that in "is view the case le'.. withins. ?(iv-A)
of the Act as incorporated therein by the U.P. State Legislature and court
fee was payable on the value of the subject-matter of the suit. The Civil
Judgo ordered the plaintiff to amend the plaint and pay the court fee
remaining due.
In appeal the High Court decided in favour of the resF
pondent, Tb State of U.P. appealed. It was contended on behalf of the
appellant: (i) that the plaintiff sought a declaration adjudging void the
decree in suit No. 4 of 1950 which was a decree '
1for money or other
property" within the meaning of s. ?(iv-A) since that expression must
include a decree concerning or relating to money or other property; (ii)
that in any case the decree in suit No. 4 was an 'in'Strument' securinJ!
money or other property having market value and s. 7(iv-A) was. therefore
attracted; (iii) ttat the relief for declaration was a mere device intended
G
to conceal the true purpdrt of the claim.
·
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
(.i) A decree for declaration of title to money or other property is
not a decree for money or property. The expression "decree fol' money
or other property'' means only a decree for recovery of money or other
property. It does not include a Jecree concerning title to money or other
H
propel:ty. [592 E-FJ
(ii) A decree ad invitum is not an instrument securing money or other
property : such a decree is a record of the formal adjudication of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
U.P. STATE V. R. K. BURMAN (Shah, J.)
589
court relating to a right claimed by a party to the suit.
It does ~ot by its
own force secure money or property. [592 G]
(iii) The relief for declaration was not a mere device or subterfuge
intended to conceal the true purport of the claim
for the
prope1ty in
dispute was in the possession of the District Magistrate, and if the Civil
Court declared the plaintiff
1s- title he would be entitled to secure recogni·
tion of his rights by the District Magistrate. [593 A-Bl

## Text

588
STATE OF U.P,
v.
RAM KRISHAN BURMAN (DEAD) BY L. RS. & ORS.
September 26, 1969
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), s. 7 (iv·.'1) inserted by U.P.
Legislature-A decree for a mere declaration of title to properi,y whether
a der;ree 'for money or other property' or an 'instrument securing rhoney
or ot~er property' within meaning of section-Undesirability of prolonging
litigation by_ roising pleas without merit.
A
B
As the reversioner of a Hindu widow's estate one 'R' instituted suit
C
No. 4 of 1950 in the court of the Civil Judge Jaunpur, for a declaration
that he was the 'owner in possession' of the said estate. 'B' who claimed
to be an heir of the widvw was impleaded as a party defendant. The
suit was decreed ex-parte. 'B' then filed suit No. 14 of 1956 in the same
court against the heits of 'R' who died after the passing of the dettee in
his suit. In suit No. 14 of 1956 'B' claimed that as heir of the said widow
he was entitled to her stridhana properties. He averred that in suit No. 4
D
of 1950 'R' had arrived at an oral compromise with him promising him
5/!6th share in the, .whole estate; that the oral compromise was later
reduced into a memorandum; that 'R' had represented to him that
a
compromise decree would be obtained_ in the suit; and that takiiig advan~
tage of his ignorance 'R' had obtained an ex-parte decree against him.
On these allegations 'B' prayed that he be declared the owner of all the
properties left by the widow, and in the alternative he be declared owner
of her stridhan properties, the decree in sujt No. 4 of 1950 having no
E
adverse effect on his rights. On the footing that he had claimed a mere
decl~ration 'B' paid Rs. 18/12/- as court-fees as in a claim under Sch. II
cl. !?(iii) of the Court Fees Act. The Inspector of Stamps, however,
reported to the Qvil Judge that in "is view the case le'.. withins. ?(iv-A)
of the Act as incorporated therein by the U.P. State Legislature and court
fee was payable on the value of the subject-matter of the suit. The Civil
Judgo ordered the plaintiff to amend the plaint and pay the court fee
remaining due.
In appeal the High Court decided in favour of the resF
pondent, Tb State of U.P. appealed. It was contended on behalf of the
appellant: (i) that the plaintiff sought a declaration adjudging void the
decree in suit No. 4 of 1950 which was a decree '
1for money or other
property" within the meaning of s. ?(iv-A) since that expression must
include a decree concerning or relating to money or other property; (ii)
that in any case the decree in suit No. 4 was an 'in'Strument' securinJ!
money or other property having market value and s. 7(iv-A) was. therefore
attracted; (iii) ttat the relief for declaration was a mere device intended
G
to conceal the true purpdrt of the claim.
·
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
(.i) A decree for declaration of title to money or other property is
not a decree for money or property. The expression "decree fol' money
or other property'' means only a decree for recovery of money or other
property. It does not include a Jecree concerning title to money or other
H
propel:ty. [592 E-FJ
(ii) A decree ad invitum is not an instrument securing money or other
property : such a decree is a record of the formal adjudication of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
U.P. STATE V. R. K. BURMAN (Shah, J.)
589
court relating to a right claimed by a party to the suit.
It does ~ot by its
own force secure money or property. [592 G]
(iii) The relief for declaration was not a mere device or subterfuge
intended to conceal the true purport of the claim
for the
prope1ty in
dispute was in the possession of the District Magistrate, and if the Civil
Court declared the plaintiff
1s- title he would be entitled to secure recogni·
tion of his rights by the District Magistrate. [593 A-Bl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 444 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 9, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No.
268 o.f 1957.
N. D. Karkhanis and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant.
R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondents Nos. l(i), to (iv), (vii)
and (xi).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by··
Shah, J.
One Radhey Lal instituted Suit No. 4 of 1950 in
the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaunpur, ·for a declaration that he
was the "owner in possession" of the estate left by Dhan Devi.
To that suit Ram Krishan Burman was impleaded as a party-defendant. This suit was decreed ex parte. Ram Krishan then filed
Suit No. 14 of 1956 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaunpur,
against the heirs of Radhey Lal (who had died since the passing
of the decree in Slrit No. 4 of 1950), claiming tha: he was
"appointed an heir by Dhan Devi" of properties described in lists
B, J & D in the plaint, that the dispute concerning the inheritance to the estate left by Dhan Devi was settled between him and
Radhey Lal, that Radhey Lal admitted his title to the properties
in Lists B, J & D and it was agreed that in the properties in
Lists A, .B, J & D Radhey Lal had 11/16th share and that he
had 5/16th share, that a memorandum was drawn up in that
behalf, and that Radhey Lal represented to him that a cor. :promise decree will be obtained in that suit, but thereafter taking
advantage of his ignorance Radhey Lal obtained a decree ex partP.
The following substantive reliefs were claimed by the plaintifi :
"(a) that a declaratory decree in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the properties in Lists, A, B, J & D
be passed;
(b) in case in the opinion of the Court prayer (a)
cannot be granted, then, alternatively, declaration
declaring the plaintiff as the owner of properties in B,
J and D being the stridhana of Rani Dhan Dai Kaur be
---
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
issued, decree in Suit No. 4 of 1950 has no adverse effect
· on the rights of the plaintiff;"
The plaintiff valued the properties in dispute at Rs. 5,99,503/6/3,
but on the footing that he had claimed a mere declaration paid
Rs. 18/12/0 as court-fees as in a claim under Sch. II cl. 17(iii) of
the Court-Fees Act.
The Inspector of Stamps reported to the Civil Judge that in
his view the case fell within s. 7(vi-A) as incorporated by the U.P.
State Legislature, and court-fee was chargeable according to the
value of the subject-matter, and the plaintiff was liable to pay
Rs. 3,528/8/- as court-fee on the plaint. The Civil Judge ordered the plaintiff to amend the plaint and to pay the court-fee remaining due.
The plaintiff appealed against tht order of the Civ;J Judge to
the High Court of Allahabarl.
The High Court held that the
court-fee paid by the praintiff was proper, and set aside the order
holding that the case did not fall within s. (iv-A) of the CourtFees Act.
The State of U.P. has appealed to this Court with
special leave.
Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act as enacted by the U.P.
State Legislature, insofar as it is relevant, reads :
"In suits for or involving cancellation of or adjudging
void or voidable a decree for money or other property
having a market value, or an instrument securing money
or other property having such value.
(1) where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title, was
a party to the decree or the instrument, according to
the value of the subject-matter, and
,,
There is no dispute that the plaintiff claimed a declaration adjudging void the decree in Suit No. 4 of 1950 declaring Radhey Lal
to be the "owner in possession of the estate of Dhan Devi".
The
plaintiff by his plaint had claimed two declarations in the alternative, and prima facie, the plaint was of the description in Sch.
II Cl. l 7(iii) of the Court-Fees Act.
But counsel for the State
of U.P. contends that the reliefs claimed fell within s. 7(iv-A)
of the Court-Fees Act.
Counsel says that the expression "decree
f6c money or other property" does not mean a decree awarding
money or other property, but a decree concerning or relating to
mc,-,ey or other ;ircperty, and he says that where the Court declares the plaintiff's title to money or property
simpliciter,
the
decree is one for money or for other pro~rty. We are unable to
Bc
E
F
G
H
.A
B
U,P, STATE V. R. K. BURMAN (Shah, J,)
591
agree with that contention.
The expression "for" occurs. twice
in the opening part of the clause. Evidently the expression "for''.
when it occurs for the first time means "for obtaining a decree
ordering (payment or revovery of)".
The expression "for" also
occurs in several other chiuses of the Court-Fees Act.
In s. 7 of
the Court-Fees Act as amended by the U.P. Legislature which
drals with computation of court-fee payable in certain classes of
suits, following clauses occur :
"(i) In suits for money
(ii) (a) In suits for maintenance and annuities or
other sums payable periodically :-
(b) In suits for reduction or enhancement of maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodic.allyo
(iii) In suits for movable
property
other
than
E
money, where the subject-matter has a marke_t value-
(iv) In suits :-
(b) for accounts
(iv) B. In suits~
(a) for a right to some .
land.
(iv) C. Tn suits-
. to arise out of
(a) for the restriction of conjugal rights,
(b) for establishing or annulling or dissolving a
marriage,
·
( c) for establishing a right to the custody or guardianship of any person.
( v) A. In suits for possession .
(v) B. In suits for possession between rival tenants.
(vi) A. In suits for partition.
(vii) In suits for th~ interest of an assignee of landrevenue.
H
(ix) In suits against a mortgage for the recovery of
the property mortgaged.
(x) In suits for specific performance-
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
(xi) In the following suits between landlord and
tenant-
( a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counter-part
of a lease,
( c) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease,
(cc) for the recovery of immovable property from
a tenant,
(f) for abatement of rent,
(,g) fnr commutation of rent,
In all these clauses the expression "for" is used as meaning "for
obtaining a decree ordering (payment or recovery of)". If the
expression "for" occurring for the first time in s. 7 (iv-A) means
in the context in which it occurs obtaining a decree for cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree, it would be difficult to hold that the expression "decree for money or other property" has a wider connotation and means a decree which ccncerns or relates to money or other property.
A decree for declaration of title to money or other property
is not a decree for money or other property.
In our judgment
the expression "decree for money or other property" means only a
decree for reco\ery of money or other property.
It does not
include a decree concerning title to money or other property.
It was urged that in any event the plaintiff had sued for adjudging void or voidable an "instrument" securing money or other
property having market value. But a decree in invitum is not an
instrument securing money or other property : such a decree is a
record of the formal adjudication of the Court relating to a right
claimed by a party to a suit.
It does not by its own force secure
money or property.
A consent decree in certain cases may be
regarded as an instrument securing money or other property,
wHere the decree proceeds upon a contract which had that effect,
but that is only because a consent decree is a record of the contract between the parties to which is superadded the seal of the
Court.
In our view the High Court was right in holding that the
court-fee paid on the plaint was proper.
It may be pointed out
that the plaintiff had claimed nothing more than a declaration with
regard to certain properties.
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
U.P. STATE V. R. K. BURMAN (Shah, J.)
593
We are also unable to accept the contention of counsel for the
State that the relief for declaration was a mere device or subterfuge intended to conceal the true purport of the claiffi. It is· evf.'
dent that the District Magistrate, Jaunpur was in possession of the
property in dispute and if the civil court declared the title of the
plaintiff, he would be entitled to secure recognition of his
rights.
Before parting with the case we must observe that we have
felt greatly perturbed by the course which this litigation has taken.
The suit was filed in 1956. And after 13 years only the question
of court-fee payable on the plaint is decided.
In the meanwhile
the original plaintiff died.
The delay .is largely attributable to
the rigid attitude of the State which has by insisting upon a comparatively small claim, held up the proceedings for all these long
years by raising contentions which had no merit. We trust the
Court of First Instance will take up this suit for hearing with the
least practicable delay and dispose of the suit according to law.
The State to pay in this appeal the costs of the heirs of the original
plaintiff.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.