Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Raj) 363

[Citation : 2010(2) RLW 1118 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh (Raveendran, J.)
HON'BLE R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
HON'BLE R.M. LODHA, J.
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh
Versus
Randhir Singh & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010, decided on 29.03.2010

Headnote:Court Fees Act, 1870, Sec. 7(iv)(c) read with 7(v) (as amended in Punjab) Sec. 6—Suit for decleration and joint possession in a co-parcenary properties — What is the Court fee payable in regard to the prayer for a decleration that the sale deeds were void and not `binding on the co-parcenary' and for the consequential relief of joint possession and injunction? —Held — There is no prayer for cancellation of sale deeds — Suit is for decleration and joint possession — Plaintiff is not the executant of deeds — Court fee was computable u/Sec. 7(iv) c of the Act— Order of trial Court and High Court set aside. (Paras 4, 7 & 8)
       Appeal allowed.
       U;k;ky; 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1870] /kkjk 7¼iv½¼c½ lifBr 7¼v½ ¼iatkc esa ;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ /kkjk 6 & lgnkf;dh lEifr esa ?kks"k.kkFkZ vkSj la;qDr dCts gsrq okn&?kks"k.kkFkZ izkFkZuk ds lEcU/k esa ns; U;k;ky; 'kqYd D;k gksxk fd foØ; foys[k 'kwU; Fks vkSj ^lgknkf;dh ij ck/;dkjh ugha Fks* ,oa la;qDr dCts ,oa fu"ks/kkKk ds ikfj.kkfed vuqrks"k gsrq\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & foØ; foys[k ds fujLrhdj.k gsrq dksbZ izkFkZuk ugha & okn ?kks"k.kkFkZ ,oa la;qDr dCtkFkZ gS & oknh foys[kksa dk fu"iknd ugha gS & U;k;ky; 'kqYd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7¼iv½¼c½ ds rgr lax.kuk djus ;ksX; Fkk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; ,oa mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vikLr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 4] 7] 8½

       vihy Lohdkj dhA

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) The case deals with determining the appropriate court fee under the Punjab amendment to the Court Fees Act for a declaratory decree with consequential relief where the plaintiff is not the executant. - (!) The relevant statutory provisions are Section 7(iv)(c) and Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as amended in Punjab). - (!) The court fee should be computed under Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v), not as cancellation of sale deeds, since there is no prayer for cancellation and the plaintiff is not the executant. - (!) The appeals were allowed, directing the trial court to calculate court fee according to Section 7(iv)(c) with reference to the plaint averments. - (!) Section 7(iv)(c) provides that for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the fee is based on the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint, with minimums and provisos; Clause (v) relates to valuation for agricultural lands or houses as applicable. - (!) The proviso ensures valuation is not less than the value of the property as calculated under Clause (v). - (!) Clause (v) specifies how to value relief related to agricultural lands vs. houses. - (!) The court found there was no prayer for cancellation and thus fee was not ad valorem on sale consideration.

What is the correct court fee payable under the Court Fees Act, 1870, in a suit for a declaratory decree with consequential relief where the plaintiff is not the executant and prays that sale deeds are void/not binding on the co-parcenary?

What is the proper characterization of prayers seeking declaration that sale deeds are not binding on the co-parcenary and for joint possession and injunction, in relation to cancellation of sale deeds under Section 7(iv)(c) and Section 7(v) of the Act?

What are the implications of Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) for determining minimum valuation and whether court fee can be computed on the value of the property or on the relief sought when the suit concerns co-parcenary properties?

Hon'ble 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 relief

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday