Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 218 (MP)

Mahila Laxmi v. Hari Singh

2016-03-10

R.S.JHA

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.83-A/2012 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay ad valorem court-fees. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaring a sale-deed dated 15.6.2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 as null and void and not binding upon him. It is submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of AIR 2010 SC 2807 (Sushrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others), the petitioner is not required to pay ad valorem court-fees as the petitioner is not a party to the sale-deed and has also not sought any relief of possession. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the trial Court, hence the impugned order be set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits that the petitioner has prayed for declaring the sale-deed as null and void and, therefore, he has to pay ad valorem court-fees as per the valuation of the sale-deed made by him in the plaint itself. 3. The controversy involved in the present case is no more res integra, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sushrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others (supra), wherein the Supreme Court while taking into consideration the provisions of section 7 of the Court-fees Act has held as under : "5. Court-fees in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court-fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab ('Act' for short). Section 6 requires that nodocument 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 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. 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 (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief -- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, x x x x according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint of 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) 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. 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 concellation of the deed, he has to pay ad valorem court-fees 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 tomerely 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." 4. From a perusal of aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that a person who is not an executant or party in a sale-deed and sue for a declaration that the deed is null and void and does not bind him or his share and also does not seek relief of possession, is not required to pay ad valorem court-fees. 5. 5. Similar view has been taken this Court in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh and others v. Kuldeep Singh and others [ 2013(2) MPHT 236 ]. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner is not a party or executant of the sale-deed and has only prayed for declaring it null and void and not binding upon him or his share. The petitioner has also not prayed for any relief of possession in the suit. 7. In the aforesaid facts of this case and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the order of the Court below directing the petitioner to pay the ad valorem court-fees being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, is hereby quashed and the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.