1. Suit for declaration that sale deeds are null and void on grounds of fraud and fabrication — Dispute over applicable court fee under Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 723
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
J. Vasanthi & Ors. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. by LRs. & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3396 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.33692 of 2016)
Decided On : 10-08-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
A party to the sale deed seeking declaration of it being null and void tantamount to seeking its cancellation. Has to pay court fee in accordance with section 40.
Valuation of a suit and payment of court fee shall depend upon the special provision in a State if provided for.
Court fee depends upon particular provision of the statute. It cannot be determined on basis of evidence.
A party to the sale deed seeking declaration of it being null and void tantamount to seeking its cancellation. Has to pay court fee in accordance with section 40.
Valuation of a suit and payment of court fee shall depend upon the special provision in a State if provided for.
Court fee depends upon particular provision of the statute. It cannot be determined on basis of evidence.
Subject
Court Fees and Valuation - Court Fee Payable
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 40 r/w Order VII Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Plaintiff a party to the sale deed – Seeking declaration of it being null and void tantamount to seeking its cancellation – Court fee has to be paid in accordance with section 40. (Para 18)
AIR 2005 Mad 405 – Cited with approval
(2011) 6 MLJ 399; 2006 (5) CTC 255 : (2006) 4 MLJ 924; 1979 (II) M.L.J. 85; 1959(I) M.L.J. 353; 2007 (1) CTC 300 – Referred
(2014) 7 MLJ 732 – Distinguished
(b) Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 40 – Valuation of a suit and payment of court fee shall depend upon the special provision in a State if provided for. (Para 24)
AIR 2005 Mad 405 – Cited with approval
© Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 40 – Court fee depends upon particular provision of the statute – It cannot be determined on basis of evidence. (Para 27)
AIR 1961 SC 1299; (2012) 7 SCC 738 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The “A Schedule property”, as appended to the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiff’s father, late Raja Chidambara Reddiyar from one Balasundara Iyyer on 12.08.1943 and also “B schedule property” was purchased by him from one Swaminatha Iyyer on 09.08.1943. On 21.02.1948 plaintiff’s father made a sale of the A and B Schedule properties along with some other properties in favour of Sellammal w/o Rangoon Krishnasamy Reddiyar. The A and B schedule properties and other properties which were sold, were again purchased by the father of the plaintiff on 19.04.1948 from Sellammal and held the suit A and B Schedule properties during his life time. Plaintiff’s father died on 07.10.1986 leaving behind the plaintiff and her sister Gowri as his legal heirs. The 1st defendant is the son of the 3rd plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is the husband of the 3rd defendant and the 4th defendant is their son. The 5th defendant is the father of 3rd and 6th defendants and father-in-law of the 2nd defendant. The suit was basically filed for seeking declaration of the sale deeds dated 30.08.1991, 23.03.1993, 04.01.1994, 10.06.2002 and 11.03.2004 as null and void and for permanent injunction.
As regards the “A Schedule property”, the plaintiff asked for a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the 2nd defendant, Janakiraman, who in turn, suggested that an agreement for sale should be made in favour of his brother-in-law, the 6th defendant, Saravanaprabhu. The agreement for sell was executed according to which an amount of Rs. 50,000/-was received by the plaintiff and her son, the 1st defendant.
It is claimed that at that time, the 2nd defendant obtained signatures in blank papers. When the plaintiff was making arrangements for partition of the A and B Schedule properties on 10.03.2011, it came to their knowledge that the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 had created fabricated documents on the basis of the document No.805/91(agreement for sell).
The defendants filed I.A. No.94 of 2014 in O.S. No.20 of 2014 praying for directing the plaintiff to pay the court fees under Section 40 of the Act failing which to reject the plaint since the plaint was highly undervalued. The said application for rejection of the plaint preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the Principal District Judge.
The appellants preferred C.R.P. (MD) No. 847 of 2015 (PD) before the High Court.
The High Court held that the court fee payable could be under Section 25(d) and not under Section 40 of the Act.
Finding of the Court;
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether court fee is payable under Section 40 for cancellation of documents or under Section 25(d) for declaration of documents as null and void. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
3. Analysis of whether a party to a document seeking its annulment must sue for cancellation or can seek a mere declaration of the document as void. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 23 )
4. A party to a document seeking to avoid it must sue for cancellation and pay court fees under Section 40, regardless of whether the prayer is for declaration. (Para 18 , 24 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned orders set aside — Plaintiff directed to pay requisite court fee within three months. (Para 28 )
6. When is Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act applicable?
Section 40 applies to suits for the cancellation of a decree or other document that purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in money, movable, or immovable property. (Para 10 )
7. How does the court fee differ for an executant versus a non-executant seeking to annul a deed?
An executant seeking to avoid a sale deed must sue for cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee. A non-executant seeking annulment sues for a declaration that the deed is invalid or non est. (Para 20 )
8. Does a prayer for declaration that a document is null and void amount to cancellation if the plaintiff is a party to the document?
Yes. If a party to a document attacks it as being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, the relief in substance amounts to cancellation, attracting court fees under Section 40. (Para 18 , 24 )
9. Is the determination of the applicable court fee provision a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence?
No. Determining which provision of the Act applies for court fee payment is distinct from property valuation and is not a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence. (Para 27 )
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the appellants calling in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order dated 16th March, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai in C.R.P. (MD) No. 847 of 2015 (PD), whereby the High Court has affirmed the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul in I.A. No. 94 of 2014 in Original Suit No. 20 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the applicant/defendant for dismissal of the Original Suit on the ground of payment of inadequate court fee by placing reliance on a wrong provision of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (for brevity, “the Act”).
2. The facts in a nutshell are that the “A Schedule property”, as appended to the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiff’s father, late Raja Chidambara Reddiyar from one Balasundara Iyyer on 12.08.1943 through document No. 412/1943 and also “B schedule property” was purchased by him from one Swaminatha Iyyer on 09.08.1943 through document No. 238/1943. After the purchase, he got the patta transferred in his name and paid the government taxes and enjoyed the properties. On 21.02.1948 through document No. 596/1948 plaintiff’s father made a sale of the A and B Schedule properties along with some other properties in favour of Sellammal w/o Rangoon Krishnasamy Reddiyar. As averred in the plaint, the A and B schedule properties and other properties which were sold, were again purchased by the father of the plaintiff on 19.04.1948 through document No. 1469/1948 from Sellammal and, thereafter, changed the patta in his name bearing patta Nos. 621, 705, 2032 and 2133, and held the suit A and B Schedule properties during his life time. As pleaded, the plaintiff’s father died on 07.10.1986 leaving behind the plaintiff and her sister Gowri as his legal heirs. The 1st defendant is the son of the 3rd plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is the husband of the 3rd defendant and the 4th defendant is their son. The 5th defendant is the father of 3rd and 6th defendants and father-in-law of the 2nd defendant. The suit was basically filed for seeking declaration that the sale deeds dated 30.08.1991, 23.03.1993, 04.01.1994, 10.06.2002 and 11.03.2004 as per document Nos. Document Nos.922/1991, Document No.330/1993, Document No.2395/1994, Document No.1239/2002 and Document No. 214/2004, respectively as null and void and for permanent injunction.
3. The further narration of the factual score is that as regards the “A Schedule property”, the plaintiff asked for a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the 2nd defendant, Janakiraman, who in turn, suggested that an agreement for sale should be made in favour of his brother-in-law, the 6th defendant, Saravanaprabhu. The plaintiff agreed to make an agreement for sale as proposed by the 2nd defendant. As per the said agreement an amount of Rs. 50,000/-was received by the plaintiff and her son, the 1st defendant and executed an agreement for sell.
4. It is claimed that at that time, the 2nd defendant obtained signatures in blank papers. Since the document was for security which was made in favour of the 6th defendant on the request of the 2nd defendant, no action was taken regarding document No. 805/91. It is further contended that the A and B Schedule properties were maintained by the plaintiff and her sister in the name of their father only. When the plaintiff was making arrangements for partition of the A and B Schedule properties on 10.03.2011, it came to their knowledge that the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 had created fabricated documents on the basis of the document No.805/91. It is urged in the plaint that the 2nd defendant was a Sub-Registrar and taking advantage of his position the sale agreement made in favour of the 6th defendant, who is the brother-in-law of the 2nd defendant, fabricated sale deeds were created by the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 as if the plaintiff had executed the sale deed in favour of the 6th defendant.
