Suit was for declaration by non‑executant with consequential relief of joint possession; proper court fee computable under Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v), not ad valorem on sale consideration. (Paras 7–8)

advocatemmmohan

APEX COURT 

[Reliefs Claimed – Co‑parcenary Property] Plaintiff sought declaration that houses and agricultural lands purchased by father were co‑parcenary properties, and that alienations (Will, gift, sale deeds) were void qua co‑parcenary rights. (Paras 1–2)

[Court Fee – Punjab Court Fees Act, 1870] Court fee governed by Section 7(iv)(c) and Section 7(v); declaratory suits with consequential relief must be valued at plaintiff’s valuation, subject to minimum equal to property value. (Paras 5–6)

[Cancellation vs. Declaration – Distinction]

• Executant of deed must sue for cancellation, paying ad valorem fee on sale consideration.

• Non‑executant may sue for declaration that deed is void or not binding; court fee differs depending on possession. (Paras 6–7)

[Illustration – Executant vs. Non‑executant] If ‘A’ executes sale deed and later sues, he must seek cancellation with ad valorem fee. If ‘B’ (non‑executant co‑parcener) sues, he seeks declaration that deed is not binding; fixed fee if in possession, ad valorem if also seeking possession. (Para 6)

[Trial Court & High Court Error] Both courts wrongly held that plaintiff’s prayer amounted to cancellation, requiring ad valorem fee on sale consideration. (Paras 2–3, 7)

[Supreme Court Holding] Suit was for declaration by non‑executant with consequential relief of joint possession; proper court fee computable under Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v), not ad valorem on sale consideration. (Paras 7–8)