Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2811-2813 OF 2010

[Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.6745-47/2009]

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh

… Appellant

Vs.

Randhir Singh & Ors.

… Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

The appellant filed a suit (Case No.381/2007) on the file of the Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh for several reliefs. The plaint contains

several elaborate prayers, summarizes below :

(i)

for a declaration that two houses and certain agricultural lands

purchased by his father S. Rajinder Singh were co-parcenary properties as

they were purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral properties, and that

he was entitled to joint possession thereof;

1

(ii)

for a declaration that the will dated 14.7.1985 with the codicil dated

17.8.1988 made in favour of the third defendant, and gift deed dated

10.9.2003 made in favour of fourth defendant were void and non-est “qua

the co-parcenary”;

(iii)

for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001, 24.4.2001 and

6.7.2001 executed by his father S. Rajinder Singh in favour of the first

defendant and sale deed dated 27.9.2003 executed by the alleged power of

attorney holder of S.Rajender Singh in favour of second defendant, in regard

to certain agricultural lands (described in the prayer), are null and void qua

the rights of the “co-parcenary”, as they were not for legal necessity or for

benefit of the family; and

(iv)

for consequential injunctions restraining defendants 1 to 4 from

alienating the suit properties.

2.

The appellant claims to have paid a court fee of Rs.19.50 for the relief

of declaration, Rs.117/- for the relief of joint possession, and Rs.42/- for the

relief of permanent injunction, in all Rs.179/-. The learned Civil Judge heard

the appellant-plaintiff on the question of court fee and made an order dated

27.2.2007 holding that the prayers relating to the sale deeds amounted to

seeking cancellation of the sale deeds and therefore ad valorem court fee

was payable on the sale consideration in respect of the sale deeds.

2

3.

Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a revision contending that he had

paid the court fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870; and that

the suit was not for cancellation of any sale deed and therefore the court fee

paid by him was adequate and proper. The High Court by the impugned

order dated 19.3.2007 dismissed the revision petition holding that if a decree

is granted as sought by the plaintiff, it would amount to cancellation of the

sale deeds and therefore, the order of the trial court did not call for

interference. The application filed by the appellant for review was dismissed

on 11.2.2008. The application for recalling the order dated 19.3.2007 was

dismissed on 24.4.2008 and further application for recalling the order dated

24.4.2008 was dismissed on 16.5.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has

filed these appeals by special leave.

4.

The limited question that arises for consideration is what is the court

fee payable in regard to the prayer for a declaration that the sale deeds were

void and not ‘binding on the co-parcenary’, and for the consequential relief

of joint possession and injunction.

5.

Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act,

1870 as amended in Punjab (‘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

3

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.