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.  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)  

4

thereof; 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 non-

est/ 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  

5

under  Article  17(iii)  of  Second  Schedule  of  the  Act.  But  if  ‘B’,  a  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)  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.  

6

8. 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