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

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 26-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 res-
F 
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 su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.