Telangana High Court
Sarikonda Anuradha Reddy vs Padma Puru Balaswamy on 20 September, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
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
