2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9253

The non-executant of an instrument is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as he is not expected to file a suit for annulment of the instrument in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Headnote:

COURT FEES - NON-EXECUTANT - AD VALOREM COURT FEE - [The non-executant of an instrument is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as he is not expected to file a suit for annulment of the instrument in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.]

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the property was ancestral coparcenary property and his grand-father had no right to sell the same. He sought relief of possession along with the decree of declaration that various sale deeds executed by his grand-father are not binding on his rights. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deeds, however, he is seeking decree of declaration that the aforesaid sale deeds are null and void. The Court concluded that the plaintiff is required to affix ad valorem Court fee as he has also sought consequential relief of possession.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is requested to calculate the amount of Court fee on the basis of the provisions of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Issues: Whether the non-executant of an instrument is required to pay ad valorem Court fee?

Ratio Decidendi: The non-executant of an instrument is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as he is not expected to file a suit for annulment of the instrument in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Final Decision: The revision petition is disposed of.