Court Fees Act, 1870 - s. 7(iv)(c) and (v) - Court fee - Computation of - In suits for a declaratory decree and consequential benefits - Filing of civil suit - Prayer for declaration that sale deed not binding on co- parcenary and for joint possession and court fee paid u/s. 7(iv)(c) - Courts below holding that the prayer was to seek cancellation of sale deeds and thus, court fee to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds - On appeal, held: Prayer was not for cancellation of sale deed but for a declaration that sale deed not binding on co-parcenary and for joint possession - Plaintiff was non-executant of sale deed - Thus, court fee was computable u/s. 7(iv)(c) - Orders of courts below set aside. The question which arose for consideration in these appeals is as to 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.=Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. There is a difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance. In essence in both the cases parties may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If the executant of the deed seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If the 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. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act, 1870. But if the non-executant is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of section 7. [Para 6] 1.2. In the instant case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co- parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds and therefore, court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. Thus, the orders of the trial court and the High Court directing payment of court fee on the sale consideration under the sale deeds are set aside and trial court is directed to calculate the court fee in accordance with section 7(iv)(c) read with section 7(v) of the Act. [Paras 7 and 8] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010. From the Judgment AND Order dated 19.3.2007 order dated 11.2.2008 and 16.5.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 1482/2007 and RA No. 35 CII/2007 in Civil Revision No. 1482/2007 and C.M. No. #9445-C-II/2008 in C.M.#7001-C-II/2008 in R.A. 35-C-II/2007 in Civil Reivision #1482/2007. Suhrid Singh appellant in person. Labh Singh Bhangu and Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondent.

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.
23. 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
3therein 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. Computation of fees payable in certain suits : The amount of fee
payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be
computed as follows :
(iv) in suits – x x x x (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential
relief.- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief
is prayed, x x x x x according to the amount at which the relief sought is
valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the
relief sought:
Provided that minimum court-fee in each shall be thirteen rupees.
Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where
the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not
be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided
for by clause (v) of this section.”
The second proviso to section 7(iv) of the Act will apply in this case and the
valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the
manner provided for by clause (v) of the said section. Clause (v) provides
that where the relief is in regard to agricultural lands, court fee should be
reckoned with reference to the revenue payable under clauses (a) to (d)
4thereof; and where the relief is in regard to the houses, court fee shall be on
the market value of the houses, under clause (e) thereof.
6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek
cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed,
he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or
that it is not binding on him.
The difference between a prayer for
cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can
be brought out by the following illustration relating to ‘A’ and ‘B’ -- two
brothers. ‘A’ executes a sale deed in favour of ‘C’. Subsequently ‘A’ wants
to avoid the sale. ‘A’ has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other
hand, if ‘B’, who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to
sue for a declaration that the deed executed by ‘A’ is invalid/void and nonest/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have
the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and
court fee is also different. If ‘A’, the executant of the deed, seeks
cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the
consideration stated in the sale deed. If ‘B’, who is a 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. 19.50
5under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if ‘B’, a nonexecutant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the
sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to
pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.
Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with
consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount
at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes
it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is
with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the
value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of
Section 7.
7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The
prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the “co-parcenery” and
for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale
deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the
Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not justified in
holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale
deeds or that therefore court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration
mentioned in the sale deeds.
68. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the trial
court and the High Court directing payment of court fee on the sale
consideration under the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001, 24.4.2001, 6.7.2001 and
27.9.2003 and direct the trial court to calculate the court fee in accordance
with Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Act, as indicated above,
with reference to the plaint averments.
……………………..J.
(R V Raveendran)
New Delhi; …………………….J.
March 29, 2010. (R M Lodha)
7