SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, April 11, 2022
Printed For: Zoya Shabbir, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2022 EBC Publishing [Link]., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS (OS) 1642 of 2007
S. Manjinder Singh v. Krishna Bhat
2013 SCC OnLine Del 4512 : (2014) 206 DLT 58 : AIR 2014 (NOC 99) 35 :
(2014) 3 CCC 400 : (2014) 1 AIR Del R 277
(BEFORE S. MURALIDHAR, J.)
S. Manjinder Singh .…. Plaintiff
Mr. Rajender Agarwal, Advocate.
v.
Smt. Krishna Bhat and Ors. .…. Defendants
Mr. R.K. Trakru, Advocate for D-2 to D-6.
CS (OS) 1642 of 2007
Decided on November 11, 2013
ORDER
IA Nos. 1256, 1257 and 1259 of 2012 (by D-2 to D-6 under O VII R. 11 CPC)
and 19161 of 2012 (by Plaintiff)
1. These are applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds.
2. The Court proposes to take into consideration the grounds concerning the valuation
of the suit for the purposes of the court fee.
3. Originally the suit was filed as one for specific performance of an agreement dated
10th October 2006 in relation to an agricultural plot of land admeasuring 37 bigha and
10 biswas = 7.82125 acres situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghuman Hera,
Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereafter ‘the property in question’) and for a permanent
injunction. Para 13 of the plaint, as originally filed, read as under:
“13. That for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit for the relief of specific
performance is valued at Rs. 3,20,31,250/- and for the relief of permanent injunction,
the suit is valued at Rs. 200/- on which the requisite court fee has been paid hereof.”
4. In the written statements filed, it was disclosed that the property in question had
been transferred to Defendants 2 to 7 by a registered Gift Deed dated 1st June 2007.
The Plaintiff thereafter sought, and was permitted by an order dated 12th August 2010,
to amend the plaint and implead the transferees as Defendants. Meanwhile on 14th
January 2010, the interim order passed by the Court on 24th September 2007 was
vacated. The amended plaint filed thereafter was taken on record by an order dated
30th March 2011.
5. Defendants 2, 4 and 7 have filed IAs 1256, 1257 and 1259 of 2012 under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The Plaintiff filed IA 19161 of 2012
seeking extension of time to pay the deficit court fee of Rs. 20.
6. The case of the Defendants is that in terms of the amended plaint, the reliefs now
sought by way of the amended plaint have not been properly valued for the purposes
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, April 11, 2022
Printed For: Zoya Shabbir, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2022 EBC Publishing [Link]., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of court fee and jurisdiction. In particular, reference is made to para 13 of the
amended plaint which reads as under:
“13. That for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit for the relief of specific
performance is valued at Rs. 3,20,31,250/- and for the relief of permanent injunction
and declaration, the suit is valued at Rs. 200/- on which the requisite court fees on
reach (sic ‘each’) relief has been paid separately.”
7. It is pointed out that the additional reliefs of permanent injunction and declaration
have been valued only at Rs. 200 whereas the value of the property as reflected in the
registered gift deed is Rs. 1,37,37,500.
7. Mr. Rajender Agarwal, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, relied upon the decisions in
Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh AIR 2010 SC 2807 and Kasturi Lal Jain v. Inder Prakash
Jain 73 (1998) DLT 520 to contend that the prayer in the amended plaint was only for
a declaration that “the gift deed dated 1.6.2007 executed by defendant no. 1 is illegal
and void”. According to the Plaintiff, the said gift deed was without any value
whatsoever and was a sham document and, therefore, not binding on the Plaintiff.
According to learned counsel for the Plaintiff, there was no need for the Plaintiff to
seek cancellation of the gift deed. It is submitted that as long no cancellation was
sought, there was no need to pay ad valorem court fee on the relief in respect of the
gift deed.
8. Mr. R.K. Trakru, learned counsel appearing for Defendants 2 to 6, on the other hand
relied upon the decisions in Sukh Lal v. Devi Lal AIR 1954 Rajasthan 170; Anil Rishi v.
Gurbaksh Singh AIR 1999 P.&H. 121 and Jagdish v. Jagat Pal (2003-2) The Punjab
Law Reporter 403 and submitted that the plaint will have to be read as a whole and if
no effective relief could be granted to the Plaintiff without his seeking cancellation of
the gift deed then the mere wording of the prayer for declaration would not be
sufficient for the purposes of determining whether the suit has been properly valued.
Under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC, the plaint can be rejected where relief claimed is
undervalued and the Plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation
and pay the deficit court fee within the time fixed by the court, fails to do so.
9. The above submissions have been considered. There is no doubt that in the
amended plaint the Plaintiff has valued the additional relief of declaration that the Gift
Deed dated 1st June 2007 is null and void at Rs. 200. In IA 19161 of 2012, the
Plaintiff has sought extension of time for making payment of the deficit court fee of Rs.
20 on that basis. According to the Plaintiff, since he is only seeking a relief of
declaration that the gift deed is null and void, and particularly since he is not a party
to the said gift deed, there is no need for him to seek its cancellation and pay the ad
valorem court fee on the value of the property as expressed in the gift deed. He adds
that the Plaintiff is not seeking a further consequential relief of possession.
10. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Act) reads as under:
“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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, April 11, 2022
Printed For: Zoya Shabbir, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2022 EBC Publishing [Link]., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
11. Entry 17(iii) of the Second Schedule requires payment of a court fee of Rs. 19.50
on plaints in suits for a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for.
However, in the present case, the relief of specific performance is the main relief and
is in relation to an immovable property which has allegedly been transferred to
Defendants 2 to 7 by a registered gift deed. In para 6 of the decision in Suhrid Singh
v. Randhir Singh, the Supreme Court gave the following illustrations (AIR SC p. 2808-
2809):
“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 nonest, 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 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.” (emphasis
supplied)
12. It must be noted that the facts in the aforementioned case were that reliefs were
being sought in relation to a coparcenary property. And yet, the highlighted portion of
the decision explained that where the consequential relief was being sought, then ad
valorem court fee would have to be paid. In the instant case the principal relief is for
specific performance of an agreement to sell an immoveable property. It is
inconceivable that where in defence to such a suit it is pleaded that the property in
question stands transferred under a registered gift deed, any effective relief can be
granted to the Plaintiff without his seeking cancellation of such gift deed. In fact, the
Plaintiff, if not already in possession, would also necessarily have to seek such relief.
As explained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh,
“if the sale deed which is a registered document exists and is not directed to be
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, April 11, 2022
Printed For: Zoya Shabbir, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2022 EBC Publishing [Link]., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cancelled and delivered the basic purpose of the plaintiff in instituting the present suit
remains unsatisfied and the Court may not be in a position to grant complete and
effective relief to the plaintiff”. The decision in Jagdish v. Jagat Pal is also to the same
effect.
13. Under the garb of an innocently worded prayer clause, the Plaintiff cannot avoid
payment of the appropriate court fee on the relief in relation to the Gift Deed dated 1st
June 2007. In the circumstances, while the value of the suit property for the purposes
of specific performance is stated to be Rs. 3,20,31,250 (which is the sale consideration
under the Agreement to Sell dated 16th October 2006), the valuation of the relief of
declaration of the Gift Deed dated 1st June 2007 as null and void at Rs. 200 cannot be
said to be correct.
14. The Court is of the view that the Plaintiff has to value the relief of declaration and
consequent cancellation of the gift deed at the value of the suit property as reflected
in the registered gift deed i.e. Rs. 1,37,37,500. The Plaintiff has to pay court fee on
that basis.
15. A direction is accordingly issued to the Plaintiff in terms of Order VII Rule 11(b)
CPC to pay the deficit court fee by valuing the relief in relation to the registered Gift
Deed dated 1st June 2007 at Rs. 1,37,37,500 and to calculate and pay the deficit court
fee on that basis within a period of twelve weeks from today.
16. In the event that the Plaintiff fails to pay the deficit court fee within the time
granted, the plaint is liable to be rejected. If the Plaintiff does make good the deficit
court fee then the other grounds urged in these applications under Order VII Rule 11
CPC will be taken up for consideration.
17. List on 28th March 2014.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.