JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby upon objections being raised by the Office, the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay requisite Court fees on the valuation of sale deed, which has sought to be declared as ‘null and void’ to the extent of the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, as he was not a party to the said instrument. He further submits that as the petitioner is neither an executant nor a party to the sale deed, he is not required to seek its cancellation. Rather, as per the prayer clause of the suit, the petitioner has only sought a declaration that the sale deed be declared ‘null and void’ qua his rights.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error while directing the petitioner to pay Court Fees as payable wherein a suit for cancellation of an instrument is preferred under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors; 2010 (12) SCC 112, held as under:

“6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/ conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and nonest/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.

7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co-parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv) (c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that therefore court f