IMPORTANT POINT
In suits for specific performance, court fees are payable only on the main relief when ancillary reliefs are sought, as per the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Bhandari, J.)

In view of conflicting judgments by different single benches of this Court, learned Single Judge referred the following question for authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench

'Whether the plaintiffs would be required to pay court fee in terms of proviso to Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 only on the value of the main relief and not on the basis of aggregate value of the different reliefs?"

2. Vide order dated 16.10.2019, on request of learned counsel for the parties, the questions to be answered in the present matter, were re-framed in the following terms:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs shall be required to pay the court fee on the aggregate value of the distinct and separate reliefs claimed in the plaint as per Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 or whether relief prayed for declaring the sale deed as null and void being only ancillary to the main relief of specific performance of the agreement to sale, the court fee would be required to be paid only on the main relief as per proviso to Section 6(1) of the said Act?

2. Whether in a suit for specific relief with the prayer for declaring the sale deed executed subsequent to the agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff as null and void, the plaintiff would be required to pay the court fee on valorem basis on the value of the property declared in the sale deed as per Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961?"

3. Registrar (Judicial) was directed to publish a notice for information of the Members of the Bar, who may be willing to address the Court on the aforementioned questions. In consequence of the notice, Members of the Bar have put in appearance before the Court and have also submitted their written submissions along with the supporting case laws.

4. It is contended by learned counsel, Mr. Praveen Jain, appearing for the respondents that as per the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), if the relief sought is ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief. It is also contended that in a suit for specific performance where the prayer is for declaring the subsequent sale deed as null and void, the same is a declaratory relief, which is sought from the Court and it is ancillary to the main relief i.e. decree for specific performance. It is further argued that cancellation of the sale deed and declaring the sale 4 deed as null and void are two separate reliefs. If a person is a party to the sale deed, then he has to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and in that case, he is required to pay ad valorem court fee. However, if a person is not a party to the sale deed, he can file a suit for declaring the sale deed as null and void. In that case, the main relief would be for specific performance and the relief for declaring the sale deed as null and void would be an ancillary relief and the court fee would be payable on the value of the main relief.

5. Written submissions have been filed by Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. T.L. Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Meeta Pareek, Advocate; Mr. Divanshu Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Shubhi Gaur, Advocate assisted by Mr. Lekhraj Dewasi and Ms. Vartika Sharma, Law Interns.

6. It is contended by Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, Advocate that the relief for declaring the sale deed as null and void is an ancillary relief and thus, the court fee is not required to be paid for the ancillary relief as per the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act of 1961. It is also contended that a suit for specific performance can be filed against the seller as well as subsequent purchaser as per section 19 of the Specific Relief Act and such suit does not fall in the category of a multifarious suit under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1961. It is further cont