Back
Over Court Fee Dispute Not Permissible at Threshold: Supreme Court in Neelam Sharma
The has firmly ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because of a dispute over the payment of , especially when the liability hinges on contested facts that require evidence. A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside a order that had conditionally rejected the plaint in a suit filed by Neelam Sharma and others seeking a declaration of joint ownership and possession of an inherited property.
The judgment, authored by Justice N.V. Anjaria, underscores a fundamental principle: at the stage of an application under , the court must look only at the averments in the plaint and cannot rely on the defendant's assertions.
The Dispute Over an Inherited House
The case originated from a civil suit filed by Neelam Sharma and seven other plaintiffs in Panchkula. They claimed that a house (House No. 417, Ground Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula) was purchased by their late grandmother, Pushpa Sharma, from joint family funds and her . The plaintiffs alleged that one family member, Rajeev Sharma (defendant No.1), got the property transferred in his name by and later mortgaged it to for ₹1.5 crore without repaying the loan.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were
with a 1/4th share each, that the transfer to defendant No.1 was
, and for separate possession of their shares. Critically, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, they asserted that after the purchase,
"the plaintiffs and defendants started residing in"
the suit property, thereby pleading
.
The Court Fee Question
Defendant No.2 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the plaint should be rejected because the plaintiffs, not being in possession, were required to pay on the market value of the property. The plaintiffs countered that as non-executants of the alleged fraudulent transfer deed and as in , they were only liable to pay a .
The Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge, Panchkula) rejected the application, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Others () 12 SCC 112. That case held that a in possession seeking a declaration that a deed is void need only pay a under .
The High Court, however, took a contrary view. It observed that the plaint's prayer for separate possession indicated the plaintiffs were not in possession, thus necessitating . The High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the plaintiffs to pay the additional court fees within two weeks, failing which the plaint would stand rejected.
Supreme Court: Only Plaint Averments Matter
Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that an Order VII Rule 11 application must be decided solely on the plaint's averments. Looking at the plaint, the Court found that the plaintiffs had unequivocally stated they were in
of the suit property along with the defendants.
"
, therefore, no aspect existed which would have persuaded the court to reject the plaint at the threshold by accepting the case of defendant No.2 in his application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, that the ad-valorem court fee was payable,"
the Court observed.
The Court clarified that the issue of court fee is not a preliminary ground for rejection when the facts are disputed.
"The question of payment of court fee will have to be looked into in segregation, for, the same would depend upon not only the possession aspect or the prayer in that regard, but also the aspects relating to the sale deed claimed to have been executed and the other facts relevant thereto. They are the issues to be threshed out on evidence,"
the judgment stated.
Key Observations
-
"At the stage of hearing Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, the courts are bound to consider the averments in the plaint only, without considering the materials placed on record in the defendants' application."
-
" , therefore, no aspect existed which would have persuaded the court to reject the plaint at the threshold by accepting the case of defendant No.2 in his application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, that the ad-valorem court fee was payable."
-
"The question of payment of court fee, whether ad valorem or , could be addressed and considered only upon establishment of such germane facts upon leading of evidence in the suit."
Final Decision and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and upholding the Trial Court's decision to reject the defendant's application for . However, the Court added a modification: the question of court fee will be decided after the evidence is led in the suit. This ensures that the trial proceeds on merits while preserving the defendant's right to raise the court fee issue at the appropriate stage.
This ruling provides significant clarity for litigants and trial courts. It establishes that a dispute over court fee, particularly when possession is claimed, cannot be used as a weapon to scuttle a suit at the very outset. The proper forum for such determinations is the trial itself, after the parties have had the opportunity to present evidence on possession, execution of documents, and other relevant facts. The decision reinforces the narrow scope of Order VII Rule 11 and protects the right of plaintiffs to have their cases heard on substance rather than being thrown out on a procedural technicality.
