SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH versus RANDHIR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 1121 · Decided: 29-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 O] 3 S.C.R. 1121 
SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH 
v. 
RANDHIR SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos .. 2811-2813 of 2010) 
MARCH 29, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
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 
C 
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 
D 
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 
E 
F 
if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to 
G 
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 
1121 
H 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 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 
c in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that 
th~ale 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 
0 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 
E property calculated in the manner provided for by clause 
(v) of section 7. [Para 6] [1126-C-H; 1127-A-B] 
1.2. In the instant case, there is no prayer for 
cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a 
F 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 
G 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 
H sale deeds are set aside and trial court is directe-d to 
SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH v. RANDHIR 1123 
SINGH & ORS. 
calculate the court fee in accordance with section 7{iv)(c) 
A 
read with section 7 {v) of the Act. [Paras 7 and 8] [1127-B-
E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
2811-2813 of 2010. 
B 
From the Judgment & 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 Cll/2007 in Civil Revision No. 1482/2007 and C.M. No. 
9445-C-11/2008 in C.M. 7001-C-11/2008 in R.A. 35-C-11/2007 in 
C 
Civil Reivision 1482/2007. 
Suhrid Singh appellant in person. 
Labh Singh Bhangu and Madhu Moolchandani for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.