Back
R.M.LODHA, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh – Appellant
Versus
Randhir Singh – Respondent
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 t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
