Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.
Anil Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Maninderbir Singh - Respondent
CR No. 4067 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2025
Key Points: - Court held that rescission of an agreement to sell requires ad‑valorem court fees on the total sale consideration of Rs.79,40,000. (!) (!) - Ad‑valorem fee is assessed according to the nature of relief; cancellation of an agreement to sell triggers such a fee under Section 27. (!) - In a declaration suit that also requests forfeiture of earnest money, the ad‑valorem fee is payable on the amount of earnest money, not on the full sale consideration. (!) (!) - A suit for declaration by a non‑executant of the agreement does not attract ad‑valorem fee on the property value unless it seeks consequential possession. (!) (!) - The judgment emphasized that the substantive relief, not the form of pleadings, determines the fee assessment. (!) (!) - The revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial court’s order on fee payment was proper. (!) - The court clarified that ad‑valorem fee is payable only when the relief involves cancellation or a declaration with consequential possession; otherwise a fixed fee may apply. (!) - The plaintiff was required to affix ad‑valorem court fees even though the agreement was not declared null or void. (!) (!) - The court’s decision reaffirmed that for a cancellation suit, the entire consideration must be used for fee calculation. (!) - The judgment ruled that ad‑valorem fees are not payable on the full sale consideration in cases where only earnest money forfeiture is sought. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of court fee direction in civil suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on court fee requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of conflicting views on fees. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. discussion of the essence of the contract. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. legal requirements for court fee in rescission cases. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. understanding of the plaintiff's claims around earnest money. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. clarification on court fees involving registered and unregistered deeds. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. the court's conclusion on fees based on plaintiff's claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. judgment on resolving conflicting views. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 10. final decision regarding the court fee issue. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the filing of the instant civil revision, the petitioners herein pray for the quashing/setting aside of the order dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure P-7), as passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, wherebys, the petitioners have been directed to pay the ad-valorem court fees on the civil suit concerned, whereins, the plaintiff has claimed relief for cancellation of the contract/agreement to sell.
Factual Background.
2. The petitioners/plaintiffs therein, had filed a suit under Section 27 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963, wherebys, they claimed the rendition of a decree for rescinding the contract/agreement to sell dated 07.05.2010, as became executed by them, in favour of the defendants. The said agreement to sell was drawn in respect of land measuring 10 kanals 1 marlas out of land measuring 10 kanals 9 marlas, comprised in Khewat No.1332 Kittas 3, as per mutation No.4273, 4386, 4723, situated near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Bilaspur, including shiv mandir constructed over an area of 200 Sq. Yards. The total sale consideration in respect of the supra suit lands became comprised in a sum of Rs.79, 40,000/-.
3. The further relief as claimed by the plaintiffs in the said civil suit was for forfeiture of the earnest money, as has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs, thus under the supra agreement to sell, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, rather restraining the defendant from forcibly and illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the above mentioned land.
4. When the said suit was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 praying therein, for the passing of a direction, upon, the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem court fees on the value of the agreement, failing which the plaint be rejected. The said application became disposed of vide order dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the plaintiffs, to affix ad valorem court fees on the total sale consideration as detailed in the agreement to sell. The relevant part of the impugned order is extracted hereinafter.
A plaintiff seeking rescission of an agreement to sell is required to pay ad valorem court fees based on the total sale consideration as per Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
In suits for specific performance, court fees are payable only on the main relief when ancillary reliefs are sought, as per the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the distinction between the court fee payable for a suit for declaration of sale deed by a Plaintiff who is a party to the sale deed and a Plai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the correct payment of court fee in a suit must be determined in accordance with settled legal principles and the specific provisions of the C....
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
