The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of court fee for a suit property should be in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the determination of whether ad-valorem court fee on the market value is required depends on the nature of the claim and the possession of the parties.

Headnote:
Court Fee - Suit Property - Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section 7(iv)(c), Section 7(v) - The court discussed the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, specifically Section 7(iv)(c) and Section 7(v) in relation to the assessment of court fee for a suit property, distinguishing between agricultural land and residential houses. The court emphasized that the court fee for a residential house should be assessed based on its market value, as per the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-defendant No.1 challenged the trial court's order dismissing their application seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for want of adequate court fee. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, joint possession, and permanent injunction over two properties, an agricultural land and a residential house.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prayer in the plaint was for joint possession of the joint Hindu family property as its coparcener, and thus, the court fee had to be computed as per Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The court held that the respondent No.1-plaintiff could not be called upon to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property as there was no clear cut ouster or abandonment of possession.
Issues: The main issue was the assessment of court fee for the suit property, specifically whether the court fee should be based on the market value of the property or computed as per Section 7(iv)(b) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the determination that the respondent No.1-plaintiff could not be called upon to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property due to the absence of clear cut ouster or abandonment of possession.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's order and finding no illegality in declining the prayer made by the petitioner-defendant No.1.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - CM-11504-CII-2022

Application is allowed as prayed for.

Main case

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the trial court, whereby an application filed at the instance of petitioner-defendant No.1, seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for want of adequate court fee, has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as well as joint possession and permanent injunction qua two properties marked by letters 'X' and 'Y' and detailed in the plaint. It would be relevant to mention here that the property marked as 'X' in the plaint is the agricultural land whereas the property marked as 'Y' is the residential house. The relevant portion from prayer clause made in the plaint as regards joint possession is reproduced hereunder for reference:-

'...and for joint possession of the plaintiff over 3/8th share of the suit property, mentioned at letters 'X' and 'Y' above along with defendants No. 4 and 5;..'.

3. Upon notice, petitioner-defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC with a prayer for seeking rejection of plaint for want of adequate court fee.

4. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed her objections to the aforesaid application. The trial court vide its impugned order dated 04.08.2022 rejected the prayer made by petitioner-defendant No.1, dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed at his instance, which has been impugned by way of present revision petition.

5. Relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court titled as 'Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others', (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 112, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of suit property being a residential house, the court fee has to be assessed on its market value, in view of Section 7(iv) (c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, 'the Act'). He refers to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the aforesaid judgment in this regard, which are reproduced hereunder:-

'5. Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab ('the 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 sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

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

Provided that minimum court-fee in each shall be thirteen rupees.

Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought 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 this section."

6. The second proviso to section 7(iv) of the Act will apply in this case and the valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of the said section. Clause (v) provides that where the relief is in regard to agricultural lands, court fee should be reckoned with reference to the revenue payable under sub-clauses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document