Cancellation coupled with declaration and dependent injunction attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv)(a).

The Appellant–Plaintiff instituted two suits seeking cancellation of Gift Deeds dated 27 June 2018 and 5 October 2018, a declaration of her ownership over the suit properties, and a permanent injunction restraining creation of third-party rights.

She alleged that she had intended to execute Wills in favour of her son and daughter-in-law, but that the respondents fraudulently procured Gift Deeds instead.

The suits were valued at Rs. 200, although the Gift Deed in favour of the son recorded the property value as Rs. 29,60,000.

The Trial Court rejected the suits under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of ad valorem court fee and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by deleting the cancellation prayer and seeking a declaration that the Gift Deed was void on grounds including fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust and non-payment of consideration.

The Plaintiff challenged both orders in the present appeals.

1. Whether a suit by the executant of a Gift Deed seeking its cancellation, along with declarations of ownership and permanent injunction, requires payment of ad valorem court fee.

2. Whether the permanent injunction sought by the Plaintiff constituted consequential relief flowing from the declaration, thereby attracting ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act.

3. Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the amendment application on a technical ground and rejecting the suits without granting a clear and effective opportunity to cure the court-fee defect.

Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable in Delhi with the Punjab amendment, requires valuation of a declaratory suit with consequential relief according to the value of the relief claimed, subject to the statutory minimum linked to the value of the property.

Under Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, an executant seeking annulment of a deed must seek cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee, whereas a non-executant ordinarily seeks a declaration that the deed is invalid or non-binding.

The Court further relied on Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P. v. Mahanth Laxmi Narain, 1969 SCC OnLine All 225, for the principle that relief is “consequential” when it flows directly from and is dependent upon the declaratory relief.

Conversely, an injunction that can be independently maintained, such as protection of existing possession, may not be consequential to the declaration and may attract a fixed fee.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings, while rejection for failure to pay the requisite court fee under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must follow a fair opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Plaintiff was herself the executant of the Gift Deeds and had expressly sought their cancellation. Therefore, the substance of the original relief, rather than the form of the pleadings, required payment of ad valorem court fee.

The additional prayer for declaration of ownership and the injunction against creation of third-party rights were not independent reliefs; the injunction was dependent upon the Plaintiff establishing that the Gift Deeds were invalid and that she continued to own the property.

The Trial Court was consequently correct in holding that the plaint could not be maintained on a nominal valuation of Rs. 200 and that ad valorem court fee was payable.

However, the Trial Court incorrectly recorded that repeated opportunities had been granted, as the record showed that the court-fee objection was raised only on 2 February 2023 and no definite time-frame for payment was granted.

Further, the amendment application had in fact been filed on 17 July 2023, but was dismissed merely because it was not accompanied by a proposed amended plaint, despite the Plaintiff having been given no effective opportunity to cure that technical defect.

The procedural handling of the application and rejection of the suits therefore warranted interference.

Nevertheless, the order dated 17 July 2023 was set aside because the Trial Court had failed to provide a clear opportunity to pay the court fee and had dismissed the amendment application on an inadequately technical ground.

The matter was remanded to the District Judge, Shahdara, to consider the Order VI Rule 17 CPC application on merits and to pass a reasoned order determining the court fee payable on the amended reliefs.

The parties were directed to appear before the District Judge on 1 September 2026.