Delhi High Court
Trident Projects And Ors. vs Sh. K.R. Dongre And Ors. on 5 September, 2006
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 22.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge determining the preliminary issues in favor of respondent no.1.
2. Respondent no.1 has filed a suit for specific performance and injunction in respect of terrace rights of property bearing no. E 4/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. A further relief is also claimed in respect of a sale deed executed in favor of the petitioners for the whole property by the owners subsequent to the agreement to sell to the extent that the same is sought to be declared null and void.
3. The only question which arises is as to whether respondent no.1 is liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the value of the sale deed executed in favor of the petitioners in view of the declaration claimed. The trial court held otherwise and thus the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that once a declaratory relief is sought along with the other consequential reliefs, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees in respect of the declaratory relief independent of the relief for specific performance. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 contends that since the said respondent has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement and the sale deed has been executed in favor of the petitioners after the agreement to sell in his favor, such ad valorem court fees is not liable to be paid.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Dilip Bastimal Jain v. Baban Bhanudas Kamble and Ors. . It has been held in the said case that in a suit for specific performance where a declaration is sought to invalidate a sale deed against subsequent transferees, the declaratory relief is only an ancillary relief and thus the said declaratory relief need not be valued in terms of the money and the plaintiff is not required to pay court fees in respect thereof. The suit has to be valued on the basis of the consideration specified in the claim for specific performance.
6. It is the aforesaid judgment which has been relied upon by the trial court to hold that respondent no.1 is not liable to pay ad valorem court fees. I am in agreement with the view taken in Dilip Bastimal Jain's case (supra) and thus, in my considered view, trial court rightly held that the declaratory relief for cancellation/invalidation of a sale deed against subsequent transferees being ancillary in nature, respondent no.1 is not liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the same.
7. There is no patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
