A declaration of voidness suffices in court fee assessments if the plaintiff is not an executant of the deed, negating the need for cancellation or payment based on market value.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. Determination of court fees, particularly in suits seeking cancellation of or adjudging a deed relating to an immovable property as void or voidable, whether the deed is one of sale, gift or otherwise, often creates a conundrum. A similar maze has arisen in the present revisional application, which has been filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, on a petition filed by defendant no. 2/petitioner under Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act in connection with Title Suit No. 671 of 2023.

2. By the said order, the learned Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the suit had been under-valued and insufficiently stamped, and accordingly dismissed the petition.

3. Before delving into the nuanced labyrinth of the controversy involved in this application, it would be apt to advert to the essential facts leading to its presentation, which are as follows:

a) The plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted a suit seeking a decree of declaration that the deed of gift bearing No. 160505949 dated 31.08.2016 and the deed of sale vide. no. 160502446 dated 30. 11. 2022, both registered in the office of the ADSR, Alipore, is null and void. They have further prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from alienating the property or creating any third-party interest in the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

4. The specific case sought to be made out by the plaintiffs is that the suit property belonged to one Smt. Ila Banerjee, since deceased, who was the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1. Smt. Banerjee had acquired ownership of the suit property by way of purchase under two registered deeds of sale dated 07.11.1985 and 07.10.1986, respectively, and her name was duly mutated in respect of the said property in the assessment records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

5. Smt. Banerjee was survived by the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1, while her husband Ram Kamal Banerjee had predeceased her. Plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be physically and mentally disabled. The case of the plaintiffs is that Ram Kamal Banerjee, out of his self-acquired funds, had purchased three properties, namely the suit property and two residential houses, one at Purulia and the other at Kolkata, and had transferred all three properties in the name of Smt. Banerjee. It is further asserted that Smt. Banerjee also had substantial deposits in SBI and UBI and earned considerable income from nearly 100 bighas of agricultural land.

6. After the demise of Ram Kamal Banerjee, the defendant no. 1 would occasionally take Smt. Banerjee to his quarters at Purulia and, on various pretexts, obtained her signatures on different documents. In 2020, when Smt. Banerjee intended to distribute her properties among her legal heirs, she was informed by defendant no. 1 that she had already transferred the suit property in his favour in 2016 by executing a deed of gift.

7. Smt. Banerjee, by her complaint dated 13.06.2020, brought these facts to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, Purulia. Thereafter, by another complaint dated 22.07.2020, she informed the Officer-in-Charge of Purulia Town Police Station about the incident. She also lodged a complaint with Bansdroni Police Station, which resulted in Bansdroni P.S. Case No. 130 dated 04.08.2021 under Sections 120B/ 467/468/471/420/406 of the IPC