Sarikonda Anuradha Reddy vs Padma Puru Balaswamy

              HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                   C.R.P.Nos.1160 and 1900 of 2021

                         COMMON         ORDER

1.       C.R.P.No.1160 of 2021 is filed against the objections

dated 12.07.2021 taken in the suit by the trial Court at S.R.

Stage.

                 'Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff through
         video conference and perused the record.
                 The office objection is that court fees is to be paid
         on the value of the suit. Previously, the plaint in the suit
         was returned on 30-06-2021 for compliance.
                 Again the plaint, in the suit, is re-submitted,
         valuing the suit for Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees twenty seven
         lakhs only) for the relief to declare the sale deeds executed
         in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as invalid, void, illegal,
         non est and not binding on the plaintiff and paying court
         fees of Rs.200/-.
                 The Section of law under which the court fees is
         paid is not mentioned in the plaint.
                 The prayer in the judgment relied upon by the
         learned counsel by the plaintiff in the case of Nade Ali
         Mirza     And   Ors.   Vs.,   Khalida   Mohammed        Salim
         Dawawala        And    Ors.   LAWS   (APH)   -   2015-10-42
         (Hon'ble A.P. High Court) is for perpetual injunction and
         declaration, in which case, it is held that the relief of
         injunction simplicitor is main relief, to the relief of
         declaration, as prayed by the plaintiff in that suit.
                                    2




            In the present case, the relief is different and,
      therefore, the facts in the case of Nade Ali Mirza And
      Ors. Vs., Khalida Mohammed Salim Dawawala And
      Ors. [(1) supra] and the facts of the present case are
      distinguishable on facts. Hence, return the plaint for
      compliance (7) seven days.'

3.    The suit is filed for declaration to declare the sale deeds

executed in favour of the defendant as ineffective, invalid, void,

illegal , non est and not binding on the plaintiff. The following

objections were taken by the trial Court and returned the plaint

on 02.09.2021.

      -     To be mentioned cause title in the suit correctly;

      -     Proper court fee not paid on the value of the suit;

      -     How the court fee of Rs.300-00 is paid, explained;

      -     To be filled in the blanks of the said suit;

      -     How the suit      is       maintainable   in   this   Court
            jurisdiction;

      -     Hence returned. Time (         ) days.'


4.    Even afterwards the trial Court returned the plaint with

certain other objections. Aggrieved by the above objections CRP

No.1900 of 2021 is filed.
                                      3




5.        Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a citation

reported        in      SUHRID   SINGH   @   SARDOOL     SINGH     V/s.

RANDHIR SINGH1 in which it was held as follows:


                  'Difference between a prayer for cancellation and
          declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance,
          can be brought out by the following illustration relating to
          `A' and `B'/Two brothers - `A' executes a sale deed in
          favour of `C' - Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale -
          `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed - On the other
          hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to
          avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed
          executed by `A' is invalid/void and nonest/illegal and he
          is not bound by it - In essence both may be suing to have
          the deed set aside or declared as non-binding - But the
          form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the
          executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he
          has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration
          stated in the sale deed - If `B', who is a non-executant, is
          in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is
          null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to
          merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article
          17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act - But if `B', a
          nonexecutant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only
          a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the
          consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-
          valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the
          Court-fees Act. 1870.'
1
    2010 (12) SCC 112
                                   4




6.    The petitioner herein stated that she is not an executant

of the sale deeds and as such the Court fee paid by her is

proper and valid as per the above case law.


7.    Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, both the matters are remanded to the trial Court with

a direction to reconsider the issue in the light of the above

decision and to number the suit, if it is otherwise in order.


8.    In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed.


9.    Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these revisions

shall stand closed in the light of this final order.



                                               ____________________
                                                P.SREE SUDHA, J.

20th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PGS