Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, (1973)

Introduction

Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, (1973) is a landmark judgment dealing with the interpretation of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. This section applies to cases where a plaintiff seeks a declaration along with consequential relief, and the court fee is calculated based on the subject-matter’s value (ad valorem) rather than a fixed fee.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed a key legal question: When does a declaratory suit actually include consequential relief, even if it's not explicitly stated?

Through this case, readers will understand:

1. The difference between simple declaratory relief and consequential relief;
2. How clever drafting cannot be used to avoid higher court fees;
3. And the importance of analyzing the real intent behind a legal suit under the Court Fees Act.

Facts

• The third respondent (father) mortgaged a joint family property in favor of the appellant (mortgagee), claiming himself as the sole owner.
• Based on this, the appellant filed a suit for recovery, and the Court passed a decree permitting the appellant to sell the mortgaged property.
• Before the execution of this decree, respondents 1 and 2 (sons) filed a suit declaring the mortgage invalid, claiming it was:
• Executed without consideration, and
• Done without legal or family necessity.
• Therefore, as coparceners, it was not binding on them.
• The sons paid a fixed court fee under Schedule II, treating their suit as a simple declaratory one.
• The appellant objected, arguing that:
• The suit also aimed to restrain the execution of the decree,
• Thus, it involved consequential relief, and
• Therefore, ad valorem fee under Section 7(iv)(c) should apply.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the suit filed by the respondents (sons) was a simple declaratory suit or included consequential relief.
2. Whether ad valorem court fees were payable under Section 7(iv)(c) or only a fixed fee under Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.
3. Whether the mortgage and consequent decree were binding on the sons as members of the joint Hindu family.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

• The High Court accepted the sons’ position, stating:
• Since the mortgage was not binding on them, the decree didn’t affect their rights.
• They were simply seeking a declaration of invalidity of the mortgage.
• Thus, fixed court fee was sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi 

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and laid down important principles:

1. Under Hindu law, when the Karta (father) mortgages joint family property, the act binds the entire family, including the sons — unless proven otherwise.
2. The High Court failed to consider that the mortgage and the decree had binding effects on the sons.
3. The court observed that the sons were not directly challenging the court decree, but by asking to cancel the mortgage (which was the basis of that decree), they were indirectly trying to block its execution. 
4. Hence, the suit was not merely declaratory, but involved consequential relief.
5. The Supreme Court observed: "Clever drafting cannot be used to avoid court fees."

Final Decision

1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
2. It held that the suit filed by the respondents attracted Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
3. Therefore, ad valorem court fee based on the value of the property was applicable, and not the fixed fee.
4. The decision of the High Court was overturned.