SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH V. RANDHIR SINGH & ORS. 2010 (12) SCC 112

SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH V. RANDHIR SINGH & ORS. 2010 (12) SCC 112

FACT

  • The appellant filed a suit in the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh, seeking various reliefs.
  • The reliefs included a declaration that certain properties purchased by his father were co-parcenary properties, a declaration that certain documents were void, and consequential injunctions.
  • The learned Civil Judge heard the appellant-plaintiff on the question of court fee and made an order 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.
  • The High Court, 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. Further review applications were also dismissed.
  • Hence present appeal by special leave.

ISSUE

  • The question was regarding the court fee payable for the prayer seeking a declaration that certain sale deeds were void and not binding on the co-parcenary, along with the consequential reliefs of joint possession and injunction.

RULE

  • It is incorrect to demand ad valorem court fee on the consideration mentioned in the deed. Courts must calculate the court fee based on the nature of the relief sought (i.e., cancellation or declaration) and by whom (i.e., executor or non-executor) as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act, of 1870.

HELD

  • The Court held that the appellant, who was not the executant of the sale deeds, sought a declaration that the deeds were invalid and not binding on him.
  • The court discussed the difference between seeking cancellation and seeking a declaration of invalidity, citing an illustration involving two brothers, 'A' and 'B'.
  • If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed
  • If ‘B’, non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act.
  • The court fee payable by ‘B’, non-executant, is not in possession seeking such declaration along with consequential relief of possession is computed under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. [Applicable to the present case]
  • The trial court and the High Court erred in holding that the prayer amounted to seeking cancellation of the sale deeds and directing payment of ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration.
  • The court directed the trial court to calculate the court fee in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Act, with reference to the plaint averments.