The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the law regarding computation of Court fees in civil suits challenging sale deeds, as enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra), and to apply it in deciding similar applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Headnote:
Court Fees - Civil Suit - Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra) - Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as the respondent had not affixed ad-valorem Court fees in proportion to the sale consideration given in the sale deed. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application without considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra).
Finding of the Court:

The impugned order was set aside and the learned Trial Court was directed to decide the application of the petitioners filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh, in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra), after hearing both the parties.
Issues: The main issue was the computation of Court fees in civil suits wherein sale deeds are challenged on any ground.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the law regarding computation of Court fees in civil suits challenging sale deeds, as enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra). It highlighted the difference in court fees payable by the executant and non-executant seeking annulment of a deed, and the requirement of ad-valorem court fees in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The learned Trial Court was directed to decide the application of the petitioners filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh, in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra), after hearing both the parties.

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants against the order dated 01.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sonepat whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-2) has been dismissed.

2. The Counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside being bad in law. It is further contended that respondent/plaintiff-Mahender has filed suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession over the suit property and sale deed No.8786 dated 21.11.2022 is null and void and same be set aside with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as the respondent had not affixed ad-valorem Court fees in proportion to the sale consideration given in the aforesaid sale deed and the suit is under valued and Court fees of Rs.50/- is affixed on the plaint. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the law with regard to Court fees to be affixed by the plaintiff in such like cases has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh and Another reported in 2010 (12) SCC 112 = 2012(2) L.A.R. 333 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12547. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Trial Court without taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra), passed the impugned order and wrongly held that no ad-valorem Court fees is required to be payable.

3. I have considered the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners.

4. The law regarding computation of Court fees in civil suits wherein sale deeds are challenged on any ground, has been fully enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra) wherein it has been 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 nonest, 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 non- est/ 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document