SHAMSHER SINGH V. RAJINDER PRASHAD (1973) 2 SCC 524: AIR 1973 SC 2384
FACT
The case involved a suit filed by Respondents 1 and 2 against their father (third respondent) and the appellant (mortgagee) challenging a mortgage executed by the father in favour of the appellant.
The mortgage was executed on a property claimed to be joint Hindu family property without consideration or family necessity.
Respondents 1 and 2 sought a declaration that the mortgage was null and void and ineffectual against them.
They paid a fixed court fee of Rs 19-50 and valued the suit for jurisdiction at Rs 16,000.
A preliminary objection having been raised by the appellant that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction
The Subordinate Judge held that although the case fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the proviso to that section applied, requiring court fee payment based on the valuation of Rs 16,000.
The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, contending that the suit did not involve consequential relief since neither the decree nor the alienation bound them.
The High Court accepted this argument and held that no consequential relief was involved, leading to the rejection of the plaint.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court in the present case, challenging the High Court's decision.
ISSUE
The primary issue was the adequacy of court fees paid by Respondents 1 and 2 for the suit challenging the mortgage.
RULE
The determination of court fees payable on a plaint should be based on the substantive relief sought by the plaintiff, considering the essence of the relief rather than mere drafting technicalities. If the relief sought includes consequential relief, such as setting aside a decree or seeking an injunction, the court fees should be ad valorem, even if the relief is framed as a declaration.
JUDGMENT
Preliminary objection was raised based on the observations of this Court in Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt Vimla [AIR 1961 SC 1299] that the present appeal is not competent. The ratio of that decision was that no revision on a question of court fee lay where no question of jurisdiction was involved.
Court found no merit in preliminary objection as in the present case the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC which provides the right to appeal.
The Court held that the relief sought by Respondents 1 and 2 effectively amounted to setting aside the decree or seeking consequential relief of an injunction.
The court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Zeb-ul-Nisa v. Din Mohammad where the plaintiff had sued for a twofold declaration: (1) that the property described in the plaint was a waqf, and (2) that certain alienations thereof by the mutawalli and his brother 126 were null and void and were ineffectual against the waqf property. The court emphasized that a declaration may include consequential relief, such as setting aside alienations.
The court disagreed with the decisions of the Madras, Nagpur, and Allahabad High Courts stemmed from their interpretation of the relief sought by the plaintiffs, Respondents 1 and 2, in the case. These courts had held that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs did not warrant ad valorem (i.e., according to value) court fees but instead required only a fixed court fee. {Venkata Ramani v. Narayanaswami [AIR 1925 Mad 713], Pandwang Mongol v. Bhojalu Usanna [AIR 1949 Nag 37],Ishwar Dayal v. Amba Prasad [AIR 1935 All 667], Bishan Sarup v. Musa Mal [AIR 1935 All 817]}
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted Respondents 1 and 2 a month's time to pay the necessary court fees.