1) court fees would depend upon court fees act of your state

2)if you file suit to set aside gift deed you have to pay court fees on the market value of the property as per ready reckoner rate or circle rate

3) contact a local lawyer .

4) in case legal heir files suit after period of 3 years delay in moving court has to be explained.

5) if the legal heir became aware of execution of gift deed recently he can file suit within period of 3 years to set aside gift deed on grounds of undue influence or coercion

1) as i said court fees would depend upon the court fees act of your state .

2) it is risky to appear as party in person . if you have no confidence in your lawyer and have removed him better engage another lawyer

3) your sister has to prove allegations made in the suit that gift deed has been executed by coercion .

4) gift deed must have been attested by 2 witnesses

5) you will have to examine the witnesses to prove that gift deed was executed by your father

6) it is necessary to peruse the plaint filed by your sister, your reply filed in court, issues framed to advice further

Hi, you have to file a application before the court under order 7 rule 11(c) of the code of civil procedure that the plaintiff has to pay the court fee on market value and the court fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient and treat this issue as preliminary issue.

2. The court has to pass an order on the above matter first and then only it will proceed further.

1) if as per court fees act of your state in suit for setting aside gift deed court fees payable was one fourth of value of the property and court fees had been paid of only Rs 1000 you should have taken out notice of motion for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 of CPC

2) you can examine your mother as witness to prove that father executed gift deed out of his own free will

3) your sister has to prove mother is mentally ill

4) if second witness is dead produce his death certificate

1. The amount of court fee is to be computed with reference to the gift deed of the property of which cancellation has been sought. Since the court fee slab is not uniform throughout India only a local lawyer can tell you what the court fee will be in your state.

2. A gift deed which has been executed cannot be revoked except if it is conditional. An unconditional gift deed can be cancelled only by the court on the ground that it had been executed under duress or undue influence.

3. You are not going to succeed as party in person as you are not a trained legal mind. So better engage another lawyer.

4. If insufficient court fee has been paid the plaintiff can pay the deficient court fee at anytime with the permission of the court.

My query is that what is the court fees to be paid by the plaintiff (legal heir of donar) when filing the case to cancel the gift settlement deed saying fraud and un due influence.

Under section 25(b) of TNCF and suits valuation act, 1965, where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.

is there any other law under which the legal heirs loose the right to re vocation with in 3 years of registration.

The limitation for filing such suits s three years from the date of its registration or three years from the date of knowledge to the plaintiff.

can you please help me with legal points which i can inform the court to make plaintiff to pay court fees on the market value of the property and the property is in chennai.

If the suit is for seeking to declare the alleged gift deed as null and void then the court fee payable as per the TNCF and suit Valuation act under section 25(b) is one half of the market value of the property.

If she has paid lesser court fee under section 7 of the Act which allows where the land is ryotwari land " thirty times the survey assessment on the land, you may brig it to the notice of the court the market value mentioned in the Gift deed which becomes the value for the purpose of court fee, and in the event of court fee pad less than that, you can file a petition under order 7 rule 11 to reject the plaint on the grounds of deficit court fee paid.

This IA you can file it before the trial begins.

I have checked the court fees act of TN. In Section 41(b) it says 1/4th of the property value. But what is the law point to inform the court to follow the market value in case their prayer is to make the gift settlement deed as Null and Void. can I take this issue as first point in the IA Enquiry on next hearing once i become Party in Person. As the defendant what am i suppose to do when plaintiff has not paid the proper court fees.

In my opinion the provisions of section may not be applicable for computing the court fee. I strongly feel that section 25(b) may be applicable. Please check that if the plaintiff has filed that since she is not a party to the gift deed document, it is incapable of valuation hence minimum value adopted as Rs. 1000/- and paid a court fee of Rs. 75.50. If this is so, you have a case to file an application as said above to reject the plaint for deficit court fee paid.

Plaintiff has filed case under order VII Rule 1 CPC 1908 is this correct rule under which case filed or can i inform the court this is wrong.

The provision in CPC to file a suit is given in Order VII rule 1 and section 26 of CPC, so there is nothing to dispute about it.

The other matters sought to be clarified by you are matter of trial, so dont rush up with everything now itself. It will take another year or more for the suit to reach to that stage. So dont exhaust all your energy on this so soon, you may tend to forget the subject when it is required to fought against.

1) you can make enquirers with the registry of the court regarding court fees payable on application for setting aside gift deed on grounds of coercion

2) as mentioned earlier court fees is a state subject and each state has its own court fees act

3) your lawyer is your best guide in this regard

whether the plaintiff who is not a party to the gift settlement deed but one of the legal heir to the donor

has to pay court fees based on the value of the immovable property mentioned in the deed or just 75.5 rs is enough.

No doubt plaintiff is not a party to the deed, were as the plaintiff is a legal heir as well, this is affecting her interest hence she need to pay the proper court fee.

Is there any supreme court ruling related to this and based on which plaintiff dont have to pay court fees based on value of the property.

You need not go for supreme court judgement so soon, you may just initiate the process.

I want to be 100% sure before i file application on order 7 rule 11

You file the application let the court decide it.

As I said earlier, the court fee is to be paid on the market value of the immovable property unless there is an exception carved out by any law in the state.

Desktop View

Main Search Advanced Search

User Queries

gift deed

ad valorem court fee

consequential relief

krishan lal

friends colony

air 2010 sc

registered gift deed

sue

Delhi District Court

Sh. Sarabjit Prakash vs Sh. Shiv Sahni on 1 August, 2015

Author: Ms. Jyoti Kler

1

IN THE COURT OF Ms. JYOTI KLER, ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­

CUM­JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT­CUM­ GUARDIAN JUDGE, SOUTH­

EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

CS No: 451/14

Case ID No. 02406C[deleted]

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sh. Sarabjit Prakash

Son of Late Sh. Vidya Prakash

R/o 68, Friends Colony­West

First Floor

New Delhi­110065 .....Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. Sh. Shiv Sahni, partner

S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Sahni

R/o 15, Nizamuddin­East,

New Delhi­110013

2. Smt. Renee Khanna

D/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Sahni

R/o A­17, Anand Niketan,

New Delhi­110013.

3. M/s Isherdas Sahni & Bros (A partnership firm)

Through its Manging Partner,

Odeon Cinema, D­Block,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi­110001

2

4. Smt. Shakuntla Sahni, Partner

Widow of Late Sh. Amrit Lal Sahni

R/o A­209, New Friends Colony

New Delhi­110065

5. Sh. Shyam Sahni, Managing Partner,

S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal Sahni

R/o 68, Friends Colony­West,

Ground Floor

New Delhi­110065

6. Shri Sunil Sahni, Partner,

S/o Late Amrit Lal Sahni

R/o A­209, New Friends Colony

New Delhi­110065

7. Shri Mohit Sahni, Partner

S/o Late Sh. Vishwa Nath Sahni

R/o W­77, Greater Kailash­II

Ground Floor

New Delhi 110048

8. Late Smt. Prem Sahni, Partner,

Through her legal heir Smt. Geeta Talwar

D/o Late Sh. Brij Mohan Sahni

R/o W­80, Greater Kailash II,

New Delhi 110048

9. Smt. Neena Sahni, Partner

W/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Sahni

R/o 15, Nizamuddin East

New Delhi­110013

3

10. Sh. Jayant Sahni, Partner

S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Sahni

R/o 15, Nizamuddin East

New Delhi­110013

11. Sh. Kapil Sawhney

S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Sawhney, Partner,

B­13, Chirag Enclave,

New Delhi.

12. Registrar of Firms,

Through its Registrar,

Patparganj Industrial Area,

Delhi .....Defendants

Date of Institution: 29.09.2014

Date of Final Arguments: 14.07.2015

Date of Order: 01.08.2015

Decision: Application allowed.

ORDER

1. This is a Suit for Declaration, Partition, Mandatory and Permanent Injunction and Rendition of Accounts.

2. Plaintiff is the brother­in­law of defendant no. 5, who is managing partner of defendant no. 3, a partnership firm, of which defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 to 11 are partners.

3. In the present Suit, Plaintiff is seeking declaration of the effect that the gift deed dated 25.07.2005 executed by Smt. Niamat Sahni (since deceased), in favour of defendant no. 5, is null and void and it should be cancelled. The gift deed in question is a registered gift deed.

4. The gift deed pertains to the share of Smt. Niamat Sahni in defendant no. 3 firm. Defendant no. 5 is the son of Smt. Niamat Sahni and plaintiff is her son in law.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Niamat Sahni had executed a Will dated 23.12.1992 bequeathing her share in defendant no. 3, in favour of her daughter, who was married to the plaintiff. Daughter pre­deceased Smt. Niamat Sahni. As per Will, in case the daughter pre­deceased Smt. Niamat Sahni, the share would go to the plaintiff. However, on 25.07.2005, defendant no. 1 fraudulently got executed gift deed in his favour, though Smt. Niamat Sahni was not in the sound state of mind during that time. She expired on 28.04.2008.

6. The gift deed is a registered deed. Plaintiff has paid fixed court fees for the relief of declaration and cancellation of gift deed.

7. Defendants moved applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on various grounds including the ground that the Suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Since there is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court, I deem it appropriate to decide only the issue of court fees and jurisdiction by way of present application.

8. The plaintiff has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh AIR 2010 SC 2807, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non­executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non­ est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The 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 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 non­ est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non­binding. 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 non­executant, 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 i9nvalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad­ valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief 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 Section 7." (emphasis supplied)

9. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that only fixed court fees is required to be paid as the plaintiff is not the executant of the gift deed.

10. Ld. Counsel for the defendants have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S. Manjinder Singh Vs. Smt. Krishna Bhat & Ors.­CS(OS)1642 of 2007 vide order dated 11.11.2013. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 2807, observed as under in para no. 12 and 13:

"12. It must be noted that the facts in the aforementioned case were that reliefs were being sought in relation to a coparcenary property. And yet, the highlighted portion of the decision explained that where the consequential relief was being sought, the ad valorem court fee would have to be paid, In the instant case teh principal relief is for specific performance of an agreement to sell an immovable property. It is inconceivable that where in defence to such a suit it is pleaded that the property in question stands transferred under a registered gift deed, any effective relief can be granted to the Plaintiff without his seeking cancellation of such gift deed. In fact, the Plaintiff, if not already in possession, would also necessarily have to seek such relief. As explained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, "if he sale deed which is a registered document exists and is not directed to be cancelled and delivered the basis purpose of the plaintiff in instituting the present suit remains unsatisfied and the Court may not be in a position to grant complete and effective relief to the plaintiff". The decision in Jagdish v. Jagat Pal is also to the same effect.

13. Under the garb of an innocently worded prayer clause, the Plaintiff cannot avoid payment of the appropriate court fee on the relief in relation to the Gift Deed dated 1st June 2007. In the circumstances, while the value of the suit property for the purposes of specific performance is stated to be Rs. 3,20,31,250 (which is the sale consideration under the Agreement to Sell dated 16th October 2006), the valuation of the relief of declaration of the Gift Deed dated 1st June 2007 as null and void at Rs. 200 cannot be said to be correct."

11. It is thus clear from a reading of the two judgments relied upon by the parties that in case a declaration is sought with respect to the registered document, the party seeking declaration will also have to seek the relief of cancellation, as the document will have to be cancelled from the public records, if it is declared null and void. In such a case, court fees for the relief of cancellation will have to be paid on the value of the document sought to be cancelled.

12. In the present Suit, plaintiff is seeking a relief of declaration as well as cancellation. The document, i.e. the gift deed is a registered one. Though the plaintiff is not the executant of the document, however, he will have to pay ad valorem court fees for the relief of cancellation, as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in S. Manjinder Singh Vs. Smt. Krishna Bhat & Ors.­ CS(OS)1642 of 2007 vide order dated 11.11.2013.

13. Therefore, in view of legal position discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the Suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.

14. Plaintiff is directed to value the Suit properly and pay the court fees within 15 days from today failing which plaint shall be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

15. Application is disposed off.

Announced in the open court on 01.08.2015 (Jyoti Kler) JSCC­ASCJ­GJ/South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi/01.08.2015

1) court fees will have to be paid on value of property as per Supreme Court judgement cited by the delhi high court

2) since plaintiff have sought declaration that gift deed is null and void and has to be cancelled he has to pay court fees on value of property

The contents of the supreme court judgment in your favor is reproduced below, as desired:

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 2807, observed as under in para no. 12 and 13:

"12. It must be noted that the facts in the aforementioned case were that reliefs were being sought in relation to a coparcenary property. And yet, the highlighted portion of the decision explained that where the consequential relief was being sought, the ad valorem court fee would have to be paid, In the instant case teh principal relief is for specific performance of an agreement to sell an immovable property. It is inconceivable that where in defence to such a suit it is pleaded that the property in question stands transferred under a registered gift deed, any effective relief can be granted to the Plaintiff without his seeking cancellation of such gift deed. In fact, the Plaintiff, if not already in possession, would also necessarily have to seek such relief. As explained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, "if he sale deed which is a registered document exists and is not directed to be cancelled and delivered the basis purpose of the plaintiff in instituting the present suit remains unsatisfied and the Court may not be in a position to grant complete and effective relief to the plaintiff". The decision in Jagdish v. Jagat Pal is also to the same effect.

13. Under the garb of an innocently worded prayer clause, the Plaintiff cannot avoid payment of the appropriate court fee on the relief in relation to the Gift Deed dated 1st June 2007.

You can see the law points therein as mentioned in the contents reproduced above.

1) you must engage a local lawyer to defend your case as he would be well versed with local laws

2) you can file application for rejection of plaint on account of deficit court fees paid

Do not be misguided by mere reading of the ecourt contents with regard to your case. The contents are fed by the court staff on a routine basis without going through the details of the case.

For knowing the proper details, you have to verify the suit register held in the concerned court office.

You can very well file the petition under OVII Rule 11 on the next date of hearing. For drafting the application you may hire the services of an experienced advocate so that you do not miss out any vital information to be pleaded while seeking to reject the plaint.

Section 27(c) & 40(1)of TNCF & Suit valuations act, 1955 is reproduced below for your information

(c) in any other case, where the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees one thousand], whichever is higher.

(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be--

Why do you get confused about section 40(1), it is meant for cancellation of decree due to improper court fee.

You do not have to quote any section seeking rejection of plaint due to lesser court fee. It is the problem of the court or the plaintiff to comply with the proper rule regarding this.

Take the help of an advocate for such minor things instead of groping in dark.

1. This shows that the court is considering a plea for insufficient court fee being paid. The court can on its own proceed to dismiss the case on account of payment on insufficient court fee.

2. The advocates on this portal are from different parts of country. Every state has its own Court Fee Act. A lawyer who practices in Rajasthan or Delhi would not bother to even read the Court Fee Act prevailing in Tamil Nadu, and vice-versa. So you must seek the services of lawyers from Tamil Nadu. I have made many appearances in the courts in Chennai, and I can vouch that the city has some of the finest legal brains in the country. Some of the most distinguished justices of the Supreme Court of India have been those who were lawyers in Chennai. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Madras Bar has produced maximum judges of the Supreme Court. So it is not possible for me to accept that no lawyer in Chennai is wiling to help you if you are willing to pay his professional fee. Unless you are walking to the chambers of lawyers carrying the bare acts and confronting them against it, in which event any self respecting lawyer will turn you out of his chamber as we lawyers do not take it pretty if we are offered this prep school crap by the litigants, there is no reason why the lawyers should not help you. So, may be you need to review and alter your manner of dealing with the lawyers.