Satyam & Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2660 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision : 29th August, 2022

+       CS(OS) 402/2022 and I.A. 10729/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC)

         SATYAM & ANR.                                      ..... Plaintiffs
                     Through:            Mr. Aditya Hooda, Advocate

                            versus

         DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Defendants
                      Through: Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. Kashish
                               Bajaj, Mr. Shubham Agarwal,
                               Advocates for defendant No.1/DDA.
                               Mr. Karn Bhardwaj, ASC for
                               GNCTD/Defendant No.2 and 3 with
                               Mr. Nishank Tyagi, Panel Counsel for
                               GNCTD.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

CS(OS) 402/2022

1. On the last date of hearing i.e., 20th July, 2022, objection with regard to insufficiency of court fees paid in the suit was taken on behalf of the defendant no.1/Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the defendant no.2/Department of Revenue and the defendant no.3/GNCT of Delhi.

2. In light of the aforesaid objection, the counsel for the plaintiffs was asked to take instructions.

3. Today, counsel for the plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that adequate court fees has been paid on behalf of the plaintiffs. He submits that

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 1 of 8 14:34:05 in the present case, the relief of permanent injunction is not a 'consequential relief' flowing from the relief of declaration. It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 8th February, 2022 executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is submitted that the relief of permanent injunction is a 'substantive relief' and not a 'consequential relief' arising out of the relief of declaration.

4. Counsel for the plaintiffs has also relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Krishna Chandraji v. Shyam Behari Lal, AIR 1955 All 177.

5. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that at this stage, when no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1, only the averments made in the plaint have to be considered.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1/DDA has relied upon paragraphs 24 to 26 of the plaint, wherein it has been stated that the boundary wall of Khasra No. 351/3/2/1 (suit land) of the plaintiffs has been demolished and fresh demarcation is being carried out, so as to create doubts towards the rights and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Counsel for the defendant no.1/DDA submits that the plaintiffs are unsure of their title and therefore, a specific prayer for declaration of title has been made in the plaint. Resultantly, the relief of permanent injunction is a relief consequential to the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiffs.

7. Counsel for the defendant no.2 also supports the submissions made on behalf of the defendant no.1.

8. Various judgments have been cited on behalf of the defendants.

9. Before I advert to the judgments cited by the defendants, it is deemed

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 2 of 8 14:34:05 apposite to set out the relevant portion of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 corresponding to the payment of ad valorem court fee.

"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--
                                  *      *      *

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

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought:

Provided that the minimum court fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees:

Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this section."

10. In Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 112 cited on behalf of the defendant no.2, relying upon the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 it was observed by the Supreme Court that where a suit is for declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction, court fees thereon has to be paid as per Section 7(iv)(c) on an ad valorem basis.

11. In Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta & Ors., 2010 (116) DRJ 97 relied

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 3 of 8 14:34:05 on by the defendants, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is limited to cases where a 'consequential relief' is claimed in addition to a 'declaratory relief'. The said provision would not apply where the additional relief would qualify as 'further relief' and not 'consequential relief'. In the said case, the Court was of the view that 'consequential relief' was sought in the suit along with the relief of declaration and hence, the plaintiff was liable to pay court fees in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Thus, the Court held that the suit had not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees.

12. In Sushila Malge v. Raj Singh Bhatti and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7485, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with a suit where declaratory relief as well as relief of permanent injunction was sought, observed that once a suit is for declaration with consequential relief, Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 will apply and ad valorem court fees will have to be paid on valuation, which, as per Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, is the same for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Sarvinder Singh and Anr. v. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2019) 265 DLT 573.

13. All the aforesaid judgments are sought to be distinguished by the counsel for the plaintiffs on the ground that in the facts of the aforesaid cases, the relief of injunction was consequential to the main relief of declaration, which is not the case in the present suit and therefore, the said judgments are not applicable in the facts of the present case.

14. Counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the judgment in Sri Krishna Chandraji (supra). Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is set out below:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 4 of 8 14:34:05 "10. According to our view the definition given in the Full Bench case does not mean that all reliefs which flow from the declaratory relief must amount to "consequential reliefs". The definition mentions four ingredients which go to make up the meaning of this expression "consequential relief". The first is that the relief should follow directly from the declaration given; the second is that the valuation of the relief be not capable of being definitely ascertained; the third is that the relief is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act; and the fourth is that the relief cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantive relief."

15. In Mussammat Zeb-ul-Nissa v. Din Mohammad, AIR 1941 Lah 97 (FB) while discussing what constitutes 'consequential relief', it has been observed as under:

"The meaning of the expression Consequential relief as used in section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act was recently considered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court (consisting of five Judges) in Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal [I.L.R. (1932) 54 All. 812 (F.B.).] , and it was held that the expression "consequential relief" means some relief, which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a "substantial relief." It follows, therefore, that if the relief claimed in any case is found in reality to be tantamount to a substantial relief and not a mere "consequential relief" in the above sense the plaintiff must pay Court-fee on the substantial relief."

16. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the issue to be considered is whether the relief of permanent injunction as sought in the plaint is a consequential relief arising out of the relief of declaration.

17. At this stage, it may be relevant to set out the reliefs claimed in the present suit:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 5 of 8 14:34:05 "c. Pass a Decree of Declaration in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants thereby Declaring that property admeasuring 1250 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No. 351/3/2/1 hearing Khata/Khatouni No. 154/293 in Village Chiraj Delhi, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110017 belongs to the Plaintiffs; and

d. Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants thereby directing the Defendants to not interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs over the property admeasuring 1250 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No. 351/3/2/1 bearing Khata/Khatouni No. 154/293 in Village Chiraj Delhi, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110017"

18. In the present case, the plaintiffs claim to be owners in possession by virtue of a registered sale deed in their favour. It has been stated in the plaint that the boundary wall constructed by the plaintiffs was demolished by the defendants on 8th July, 2022. It has further been averred that the defendants are reconducting demarcation of Khasra No.351, where the suit land is stated to be situated.

19. In paragraph 26 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that doubts are being created on the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Accordingly, the relief of declaration has been sought in the suit, declaring the plaintiffs as the owners of the suit land.

20. On a query from the Court as to whether the plaintiffs are willing to give up the declaratory relief sought in the suit, the counsel for the plaintiffs answers in the negative.

21. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594, the Supreme Court laid down the general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession along with injunction as a

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 6 of 8 14:34:05 consequential relief. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is set out below:

"13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 13.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction."

[emphasis supplied]

22. In terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, even if it is assumed that the plaintiffs are in possession, when there is a dispute or a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and the plaintiffs are under a threat of dispossession, the plaintiffs will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction.

23. The dicta of the Supreme Court in Anathula (supra) is squarely Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 7 of 8 14:34:05 applicable to the facts of the present case. It is an admitted position that the suit land is a vacant plot of land and in view of the fresh demarcation being carried out by the defendants, as admitted in the plaint, there is uncertainty with regard to the portion of the property which is in possession of the plaintiffs. There is also a cloud created on the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and the plaintiffs are threatened with dispossession. Therefore, before granting relief for permanent injunction, the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land has to be determined, for which relief of declaration has been sought in the plaint.

24. In this view of the matter, the relief of permanent injunction would flow directly from the declaration given and it cannot be said that the injunctive relief can be granted independent to the relief of declaration.

25. In light of the discussion above, the plaintiffs are bound to pay the entire court fees on an ad valorem basis, on the amount of Rs.5,74,00,000/-, which is stated to be the value of the property in the plaint. Let the aforesaid deficiency in court fees be made up within a period of four weeks.

26. Counsel for the defendants states that the written statement shall be filed within two weeks.

27. List before the Court on 20th October, 2022 for further directions.

AMIT BANSAL, J.

AUGUST 29, 2022 at

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL

CS(OS) 402/2022 Signing Date:31.08.2022 Page 8 of 8 14:34:05