SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 272

2010 (2) Supreme 670
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran, R M Lodha, JJ.
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh — Appellant
versus
Randhir Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.6745-47/2009]
Decided on : 29-3-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
In a suit for declaration that the deeds do not bind the “co-parcenery” and for joint possession by a person who was not the executant of the sale deeds; court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870

Headnote:Court Fees Act, 1870 – Section 7(iv)(c) – Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed – But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him – No prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds – Prayer for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the “co-parcenery” and for joint possession by a person who was not the executant of the sale deeds – Court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. (Paras 6 and 7)

       Facts of the case:

       1.The appellant claims to have paid a court fee of Rs.19.50 for the relief of declaration, Rs.117/- for the relief of joint possession, and Rs.42/- for the relief of permanent injunction, in all Rs.179/-.

       2.The learned Civil Judge heard the appellant-plaintiff on the question of court fee and made an order dated 27.2.2007 holding that the prayers relating to the sale deeds amounted to seeking cancellation of the sale deeds and therefore ad valorem court fee was payable on the sale consideration in respect of the sale deeds.

       3.Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a revision contending that he had paid the court fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870; and that the suit was not for cancellation of any sale deed and therefore the court fee paid by him was adequate and proper.

       4.The High Court by the impugned order dated 19.3.2007 dismissed the revision petition.

       5.The limited question that arises for consideration is what is the court fee payable in regard to the prayer for a declaration that the sale deeds were void and not ‘binding on the co-parcenary’, and for the consequential relief of joint possession and injunction.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

Judgement Key Points

The ratio of the judgment is that in a suit for a declaration that certain deeds do not bind the co-parcenery and for joint possession by a person who was not the executant of the sale deeds, the court fee is to be computed under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, rather than on the sale consideration. This is because the suit does not seek cancellation of the sale deeds, but rather a declaration of their invalidity or non-binding nature on the co-parcenery, along with consequential relief of joint possession. The court emphasized that the form of relief sought—declaration rather than cancellation—determines the applicable court fee, and in such cases, the valuation should be based on the property’s value, not the sale consideration. The judgment clarifies that the courts were incorrect in holding that the fee should be calculated on the sale consideration, and directs that the court fee should be assessed according to the valuation of the property as per the relevant provisions.


JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J.—

Leave granted.

The appellant filed a suit (Case No.381/2007) on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh for several reliefs. The plaint contains several elaborate prayers, summarizes below :

(i) for a declaration that two houses and certain agricultural lands purchased by his father S. Rajinder Singh were co-parcenary properties as they were purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral properties, and that he was entitled to joint possession thereof;

(ii) for a declaration that the will dated 14.7.1985 with the codicil dated 17.8.1988 made in favour of the third defendant, and gift deed dated 10.9.2003 made in favour of fourth defendant were void and non-est “qua the co-parcenary”;

(iii) for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001, 24.4.2001 and 6.7.2001 executed by his father S. Rajinder Singh in favour of the first defendant and sale deed dated 27.9.2003 executed by the alleged power of attorney holder of S.Rajender Singh in favour of second defendant, in regard to certain agricultural lands (described in the prayer), are null and void qua the rights of the “co-parcenary”, as they were not for legal necessity or for benefit of the family; and

(iv) for consequential injunctions restraining defendants 1 to 4 from alienating the suit properties.

2.The appellant claims to have paid a court fee of Rs.19.50 for the relief of declaration, Rs.117/- for the relief of joint possession, and Rs.42/- for the relief of permanent injunction, in all Rs.179/-. The learned Civil Judge heard the appellant-plaintiff on the question of court fee and made an order dated 27.2.2007 holding that the prayers relating to the sale deeds amounted to seeking cancellation of the sale deeds and therefore ad valorem court fee was payable on the sale consideration in respect of the sale deeds.

3.Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a revision contending that he had paid the court fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870; and that the suit was not for cancellation of any sale deed and therefore the court fee paid by him was adequate and proper. The High Court by the impugned order dated 19.3.2007 dismissed the revision petition holding that if a decree is granted as sought by the plaintiff, it would amount to cancellation of the sale deeds and therefore, the order of the trial court did not call for interference. The application filed by the appellant for review was dismissed on 11.2.2008. The application for recalling the order dated 19.3.2007 was dismissed on 24.4.2008 and further application for recalling the order dated 24.4.2008 was dismissed on 16.5.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed these appeals by special leave.

4.The limited question that arises for consideration is what is the court fee payable in regard to the prayer for a declaration that the sale deeds were void and not ‘binding on the co-parcenary’, and for the consequential relief of joint possession and injunction.

5.Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab (‘Act’ for short). Section 6 requires that no document of the kind specified as chargeable in the First and Second Schedules to the Act shall be filed in any court, unless the fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of Second Schedule requires payment of a court fee of Rs.19/50 on plaints in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for. But where the suit is for a declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction, court fee thereon is governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which provides :

“7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits : The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :

(iv) in suits - x x x x (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, x x x x x according to the amount at which the relie







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top