2

IN THE
- N/E
HON'BLE COURT OF SH.AASHISH GUPTA. DJ 01,
DISTT., KKD COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT N0. 42 OF 2020
IN THE
MATTER
OF
SMT,URMILA
DEVI PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
YASH PAL
MITTAL DEFENDANT

NDOH 05.08.2024

APPLICATION RECALLING/
BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF FOR
ON
MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2024
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the present matter is pending for disposal before this Hon'ble court

on dated 05.08.2024.

2. That the Hon'ble court was pleased to pass the order on dated 20.05.2024
as
of payment of court fees by the plaintiff considering the plaintiff the

executant of the alleged documents of which the plaintiff is seekino

declaration of those documents as null and void in the present suit

was passed by the Hon'ble court in

order dated 20.05.2024 the
3. That the
no fair
absence of
Main counsel of the plaintiff and opportunity was

to present her defence once. It is further

granted to the plaintiff's counsel

pertinent to mention here that on previous hearings dated 02.02.2024,

 24.02,2024, 06.04,2024 and 20,05.2024, the prescnt matter was adjoumed

for the report of thejoint transfer petition wherein another civil matter
was

tobe clubbed with this present matter.

4. That the plaintifT has mentioned in her reply to application under Order 7

Rule XI filed by the defendant that the plaintiff is the non-exccutant the
of
documents as allegcd by the defendant. It is pertincnt to mention herc that
the plaintiff had filed Hon'ble Supreme court judgment dated 29.03.2010

in the matter of Suhrid Singh (@ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh along

with her reply that if a person is the executant of the document then the
person has to seek cancellation
of the documents and pay the ad-valorem
court fees whercas in another situation,
if thc person is the non-cxecutant
of the documents as well as in the possession of the suit premises then the
person has to seek declaration of the documents as null and void and pay

the fixed court fees.

5. That the plaintiff had taken the loan of Rs.

50,000/- onlyfrom thedefendant
for her pcrsonal necds and against this loan,
the defendant got signed some
blank papers/ sheets by the plaintiff and also
deposited with him original
title documents of the suit propcrty in the name
of plaintiff. Thercafter, the
defendant misused the blank documcnts/
sheets and crecated two sets of

forged documents GPA in the name of the defendant

which bears the name
of different witnesses on one set of GPA and different
witnesses on the
another set of GPA of thesame date and same stamp paper.
Similarly, the
 defendant
created
bears forged two scts of onc set
Agrcemcnt to scll on which
ames
of
different witnesses names of
the witnesses and another set doesn't bear

6. That having the same date &

same no. of staamp papers.
the po
POssession letter dated
04.10.2016 bears the signatures of the
plaintiff
only at both
the placcs i.c. possession handed over and possession
taken over.
Morcovcr,
the defendant allcges that the defendant has rented
outthe
suit premises
tothe plaintiff on
the very same day 04.10.2016 and
arent agrccment
for the same was Cxccuted on dated 04.10.2016 and thc
Same expired on
dated 03.09.2017. Per contra,
the defendant has stated in
his legal notice
dated 18.12.2018 in para no. 2, in his plaint in civil suit
135/2019 in para no. 3 as well as in the WS and amended WS in
the present
Suit in para no. 7 that the plaintiff along with his husband had approached

to the defendant in September 2017 for taking the suit premises on rent.

This clearly postulates that the defendant has concocted a story to grab the

suit property of the plaintiff only in Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff has already

filed copy of certificd copies of these above mentioned documents along

with replication.
on
7 That the plaintiff is the bona fide first purchaser of the suit premises
in the
0802.2012 from the builder Sh. Sandeep Khurana and since then

possession of the suit premises.

non-executant and is in possession

That the plaintiff isthe the documents
of
8.
the suit property in 2012 and
of the suit premises since purchase of
 of
therefore, filcd suit for declaration of forged documents the defendant
pay only fixed court
the plaintiff is liable to
to be null and void, therefore,

fee as per law and as decided in the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by

Hon ble Supreme court in the matter of Suhrid Singh (@ Sardool Singh vs

Randhir Singh.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court

may graciously be pleased to allow the application to recall/modify

the order
dated 20.05.2024 in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is
entitled to pay only
the fixcd court fees as prayed in the interest of
justice.

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
DELHI
DATED: 24.05.2024
itt
VIKAS AGRAWAL & VISHAKHA
MITTAL
ADVOCATES
CH NO. 114B, WW,THC, DELHI
–54
8882171365
 Supreme
Court Suhrid Singh Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh 2010
Author:Singh @ofIndia
&
Ors on 29 March.

Sardool
Bench RV.Raveendran
Singh vs Randhir Singh &
Ors on 29 March, 2010
RV. Raveendran
,R.M. Lodha

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2811-2813 0F 2010

[Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.6745-47/2009]

Suhrid Singh @
Sardool Singh Appellant
Vs.

Randhir Singh & Ors. Respondents

JUDGMENT

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

The appell ant filed a suit (Case No.381/2007)
prayers, summarizes below
Chandigarh for several reliefs. The plaint contains several elaborate

(i) for a declaration that two houses and certain agricultural

lands purchased by his father S.
as were purchased from the sale proceeds of
Rajinder Singh were co-parcen ary properties they
possession thereof:
ancestral properties,and that he was entitled to joint

14.7.1985 with the codicil dated 17.8.1988 made in

favour of
a declaration that the will dated
(i) for 10.9.2003 made in favour of fourth defendant
were void
the third defendant, and gift deed dated
co-parcenary";
and non-est 'qua the
executed by his
declaration
a that the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001, 24.4.2001 and 6.7.2001
(ii)forS. Rajinder Singh in favour of the first defendant and sale deed dated 277.9.2003 executed by
father in regard to
holder of S.Rajender Singh in favour second defendant,
of
:
power offattorney
the alleged
agricultural laands (described in the prayer),
are null and void qua the rights of the
certain , or benefit of the family; and
"co-parcenary", as they were not for legal necessity for

http:/indiankanoon.org/doc/1t1188410/
Kanoon-
Indian
 & Ors on 29 March, 2010
Randhir Singh
Sardool Singh vs
trom alienating the. Suit
@

Suhrid Singh
defendants 1 to 4
(iv) for consequential injunctions restrajining propertie

for the relief of declaration

claims to have paid
a court
fee of Rs.19.5 injunction. in all RS117|-or
1he
2
appellant of permanent
the relief Rs.7sl-he
the relief of joint | possession, and Rs.42/- for on question of court fee and made
learned Civil Judge heard the appellant-plaintiff the deeds amounted to. seeking anorder
the sale
dated 27.2.2007 holding that the prayers relating to was on the Sale considerati
ancelation
payaDle
of
the sale deeds and therefore ad valorem court fee
inrespec
of the sale deeds.
he had paid the court fee
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a revision contending that
suit was not for cancellation o under
section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870; and that the ofany
was adequate and prOper. The High Court sale
deed andtherefore the court fee paid by him
petition holding that if decree is bythe
a

impugned order dated 19.3.2007 dismissed the revision granted

cancellation of
the sale deeds and ttherefore,
as sought by
the plaintiff, it would lamount to theorder
appellant for review
the trial court did not call for interference. The application filed the
of by
was
was
dismissed on 11.2.2008. The application for recalling the order dated 19.3.2007 dismissed
on
was dismissed
24.4.2008 and further application for recalling the order dated 24.4.2O08 on
16.5.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed these appeals by specialleave.

4. The limited question that arises for consideration is what is the court fee payable in regard toih.
prayer for a declaration that the sale deeds were void and not binding on the co-parcenary, and f
the consequential relief of joint possession and injunction.

5. Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Puniah
(Act' for short). Section6 requires that no document 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 The amount :

of fee payable under
this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned
shall be computed as follows :

(iv) in suits - xXXX (c) for a declaratory

decree and consequential relief.- to
declaratory decree or order, where consequential obtain a
relief is prayed, x xXXX according
to the amount at which the
relief sought is valued in the
appeal.
plaint or memorandum of

In all such suits the

plaintiff shall state the amount at
sought: which he values the reliet

Provided that minimum

court-fee in each shall
be thirteen rupees.

Indian Kanoon - http:/indiankanoon.org/doc/1188410/

 Provided Suhrid
Singh h@ Sardool
sought further that in Singh vs
Randhir
value of
is with reference suits comning Singh
& Ors on 29 March, 2010
to under
section. the property calculated
any property sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief
such
in the mannervaluation shall not be less thanof the
The second provided for by clause (v) this
proviso
less than
the value of to section 7(iv)
section. Clause of the Act not be
the propertycalculated will
apply in this case and the valuation shall said
be reckoned with (v) provides the
that wherethe inthe manner provided for by clause ((v) of fee
should
relief is reference relief court
tothe revenue is regard to agricultural lands,
in where the
thereof.in
regardto payable under clauses (a) to (d) thereof; and
the houses, court (e)
feeshall be on value houses, under clause
the market of
the
6. Where the executant
of a deed. But
if a non-executant seeks deed wantsitto be annulled, he has to seek cancellation theinvalid, of
or

non-est, or illegal annulment of a deed, he has the deed is

canccllation
orthat it not to seck a declaration that
and declaration in regard a is binding on him. The difference between a prayer for following
to deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out bythe C.
illustration relating to of
`A' and B' -- two brothers. deed in favour
Subsequently A' wants to A executes sale a
other
avoid the sale. `A' has sue cancellation of the deed. On the
hand, if B, who is not the executant to for a declaration
of the deed,, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for
that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void non est/ illegal and he is not
1 bound by it. In
essence both may and form is
be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the of the
different and court fee is also different. If cancellation
`A, theeexecutant of the deed, seeks who is
a
deed, he has t pay on sale deed. IfB',
to ad-valorem court fee the consideration stated in the does not
non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and
Article 17(iii) of
bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under
not in possession, and he seeks not Oy
Second Schedule of the Act. But if B.anon- executant. is
he hasto Pay
declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession,
7(iv) provides that
(c)
an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section z(iv)(c) of the Act. Section
in suits for a declaratory decree with
consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according
plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear
to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the
consequential relief is with reference to any property,
that where the suit for declaratory decree with
property calculated in the manner provided for
Such valuation shall not be less than the value of the
Section 7.
by clause (v) of
of the sale deeds. The
prayer is for a declaration
case, there is no prayer for cancellation
7 In this
do not bind the "co-parcenery" 'and for joint possession. The plaintiffin the suit was
that the deeds court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of
executant of the sale deeds..Therefore, the
not the were therefore not justified in holding that the effect of
court and the High Court
Act. The trial or that
the
was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds that therefore court fee had to be paid on the
prayer deeds.
the
consideration mentioned in the sale
sale
of
accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the orders the trial court and the High Court
8.
We
on consideration under the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001,
payment of court fee the sale
c

directing direct the trial court to)calculate the court fee in accordance
24.4.2001, 6.7.2001 and 27.9.2003 and
http/indiankanoon.org/doc/11884 10/
lodian Kanoon-
 on 29 March, 20o
uhtid Singh e Sardool Singh vs itandhir Singh 8 Ort with
with Section z(iv)(c) read with Section 2(v) the Act, as indieated above, yelerence
of
toilhe
plaint averments.

(R V Raveendran)

New Delhi: (RM Lodha)

March 29, 2010.

- http/findiankanoon.orgdoc/1 188410/
Indian Kanoon