Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh V. Randhir Singh & Ors., 2010

Introduction

In property disputes involving declaratory relief and possession, the calculation of court fees becomes a significant legal point. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., clarified how Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act and its Punjab amendment operate, especially in suits involving non-executants of a deed. This case offers crucial insight into how declaratory relief combined with consequential relief like possession is to be valued for court fee purposes.

Relevant Provisions

1. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act: When a suit involves a declaration with consequential relief, the court fee must be paid ad valorem—i.e., according to the value of the subject matter involved.
2. Punjab Amendment – Second Proviso to Section 7(iv)(c): If the relief pertains to immovable property, the valuation must not be less than what is prescribed under Section 7(v).
3. Section 7(v) of the Court fees Act, 1870:- This provision explains how court fees are to be computed when the suit is for possession of immovable property. The value differs based on the nature of the property:
1. Market value for houses/buildings.
2. Revenue value for agricultural land

Case background:

The appellant, Suhrid Singh, filed a suit asserting that his father, S. Rajinder Singh, had purchased properties—two houses and agricultural land—using ancestral property funds. Thus, he claimed these were coparcenary properties under Hindu law.

Facts of the Case

Suhrid Singh sought multiple reliefs through his suit:

1. Declaration of Coparcenary and Right to Possession: He wanted the court to declare the property as coparcenary and recognize his right to joint possession.
2. Declaration that the Will and Gift Deed were Void: He claimed that his father had no authority under Hindu law to unilaterally gift or will away coparcenary property.
3. Declaration against Sale Deeds: He challenged certain sale deeds, arguing they weren’t executed for any legal or family necessity, hence not binding on the coparcenary.
4. Permanent Injunction: He sought to restrain the defendants from alienating the disputed properties further.

The appellant paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 for declaratory relief and similar nominal fees for joint possession and injunction.

Legal Issue:

1. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff, treating the suit as one for declaratory relief alone, was appropriate and in accordance with law?

Case History:

1. Trial Court: The Trial Court held that the suit involved declaratory relief with possession (a consequential relief), so ad valorem court fee was required. The fixed fee paid was not sufficient.
2. High Court: Dismissed the appellant's review, revision, and recall petitions. Hence, the matter reached SC through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Supreme Court’s Ratio Decidendi:

1. If a person is the executant of a deed and wants to cancel it, he must seek cancellation of the deed attracting ad valorem fee.
2. If the person is a non-executant, he need not cancel the deed but can seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, illegal, or not binding.
3. However, if the non-executant is not in possession of the property, he must seek a consequential relief of possession. This combination falls under Section 7(iv)(c) and requires ad valorem fee as per the property’s value.

Final Decision:

1. The Supreme Court held: Since the appellant was a non-executant and not in possession of the property, his relief was indeed declaratory with consequential relief.
2. Therefore, as per Punjab’s amended Court Fees Act, Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) applies.
3. The appellant’s claim for paying only a nominal fixed court fee was rejected.
4. The trial court was directed to reassess court fee in accordance with the ad valorem rate under the applicable sections.