The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of reliefs for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction must be in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the Second Schedule, and the Plaintiff must pay the appropriate court fee based on the valuation of the relief sought.

IA Nos. 1256, 1257 and 1259 of 2012 (by D-2 to D-6 under O VII R. 11 CPC) and 19161 of 2012 (by Plaintiff)

1. These are applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds.

2. The Court proposes to take into consideration the grounds concerning the valuation of the suit for the purposes of the court fee.

3. Originally the suit was filed as one for specific performance of an agreement dated 10th October 2006 in relation to an agricultural plot of land admeasuring 37 bigha and 10 biswas = 7.82125 acres situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghuman Hera, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereafter ‘the property in question’) and for a permanent injunction. Para 13 of the plaint, as originally filed, read as under:

“13. That for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit for the relief of specific performance is valued at Rs.3,20,31,250/- and for the relief of permanent injunction, the suit is valued at Rs.200/- on which the requisite court fee has been paid hereof.”

4. In the written statements filed, it was disclosed that the property in question had been transferred to Defendants 2 to 7 by a registered Gift Deed dated 1st June 2007. The Plaintiff thereafter sought, and was permitted by an order dated 12th August 2010, to amend the plaint and implead the transferees as Defendants. Meanwhile on 14th January 2010, the interim order passed by the Court on 24th September 2007 was vacated. The amended plaint filed thereafter was taken on record by an order dated 30th March 2011.

5. Defendants 2, 4 and 7 have filed IAs 1256, 1257 and 1259 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The Plaintiff filed IA 19161 of 2012 seeking extension of time to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.20.

6. The case of the Defendants is that in terms of the amended plaint, the reliefs now sought by way of the amended plaint have not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. In particular, reference is made to para 13 of the amended plaint which reads as under:

“13. That for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit for the relief of specific performance is valued at Rs.3,20,31,250/- and for the relief of permanent injunction and declaration, the suit is valued at Rs.200/- on which the requisite court fees on reach (sic ‘each’) relief has been paid separately.”

7. It is pointed out that the additional reliefs of permanent injunction and declaration have been valued only at Rs.200/- whereas the value of the property as reflected in the registered gift deed is Rs. 1,37,37,500/-.

8. Mr. Rajender Agarwal, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, relied upon the decisions in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh AIR 2010 SC 2807 and Kasturi Lal Jain v. Inder Prakash Jain 73 (1998) DLT 520 to contend that the prayer in the amended plaint was only for a declaration that “the gift deed dated 1.6.2007 executed by defendant no. 1 is illegal and void”. According to the Plaintiff, the said gift deed was without any value whatsoever and was a sham document and, therefore, not binding on the Plaintiff. According to learned counsel for the Plaintiff, there was no need for the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of the gift deed. It is submitted that as long no cancellation was sought, there was no need to pay ad valorem court fee on the relief in respect of the gift deed.

9. Mr. R.K. Trakru, learned counsel appearing for Defendants 2 to 6, on the other hand relied upon the decisions in Sukh Lal v. Devi Lal AIR 1954 Rajasthan 170; Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh AIR 1999 P.&H. 121 and Jagdish v. Jagat Pal (2003-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 403 and submitted that the plaint will have to be read as a whole and if no effective relief could be granted to the Plaintiff without his seeking cancellation of the gift deed then the mere wording of the prayer for declaration would not be sufficient for the purposes of determining whether the suit has