The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of court fee payable in a suit for declaration of joint ownership and consequential relief of possession, where the sale deeds are not under challenge, as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

JUDGMENT :

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby the plaintiff-petitioners have been directed to affix ad-valorem court fee on the plaint. The said order has been passed on an application filed by the defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioners herein filed a suit for declaration with possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-petitioners and the defendant-respondents are real brothers and that the plaintiff-petitioners and the defendant-respondents had jointly purchased land measuring 30 marlas from their joint income. However, the defendant-respondents had not got the sale deeds registered in the names of the plaintiff-petitioners. The prayer in the suit was for the issuance of a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioners are owners of land measuring 15 marlas out of 30 marlas of land with consequential relief of possession.

3. The defendant-respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-3) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioners ought to have affixed ad-valorem Court fee on the market value of the property. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a reply (Annexure P-4) to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-1) the Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioners to affix ad-valorem court fee on the plaint. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has contended that the plaintiff-petitioners have affixed court fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’) and would not be liable to affix ad-valorem court fee as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2807. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiff-petitioners have not challenged the sale deed but are only seeking joint possession in the suit property since the suit land, though purchased jointly from the joint income, the sale deed qua the same had been registered only in the name of the defendant-respondents.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has contended that the plaintiff-petitioners would be required to pay ad-valorem court fee in as much as the plaintiff-petitioners being non-executants and not in possession have not only sought a declaration but have also sought a consequential relief of possession and, therefore, they have to affix ad-valorem court fee. To buttress his argument the learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Prem Wati vs. Jule Khan and Others, C.R. No. 1686 of 2018 decided on 04.04.2019.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the limited question that arises for consideration is - What is the court fee payable in regard to the prayer for declaration that the plaintiff-petitioners are the joint owners of the suit property and for the consequential relief of possession and injunction?

8. Section 7 of the Act reads as under:

“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:

xxx xxx xxx

For a declaratory decree and consequential relief - (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed.

xxx xxx xxx

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra) has laid down as under:

“6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. Bu