Duli Chand (D) Thr His Lrs vs. Shri Bans Guru Gaddi Kabir Dharam Dass Bansawali Kabir Authorised Person

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.__________ OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21500/2017)

DULI CHAND (D) THR HIS LRS. & ORS. ...Appellants

VERSUS

SHRI BANS GURU GADDI KABIR DHARAM DASS BANSAWALI KABIR ...Respondent

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

Vijay Kumar

16:31:23 IST Reason:

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2017 passed in C.R. No.6908 of 2016 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the plaintiffs-appellants herein has preferred this appeal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiffsappellants herein filed a suit for declaration and possession. According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners of the suit land detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint and the gift deed dated 28.10.1970 and mutation No.3354 and subsequent revenue entries are illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and a decree for declaration and possession as regards the defendants was sought. In the said plaint at paragraph No.11, the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee is made as under: Digitally signed by Date: 2024.10.05 Signature Not Verified

"11. That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is assessed at Rs.200/- on which a court fee stamp of Rs.25/- has been affixed on the plaint."

4. Objecting to the said valuation, the respondentdefendant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the C.P.C." for short). The said application was allowed by the Trial Court which order was assailed by the plaintiffs-appellants before the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court holding that Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 ("the Act" for short) was applicable. Consequently, by order dated 20.09.2016, the Trial Court held that Section 7(v)(a) of the Act was applicable and court fee to be paid was 10 times the land revenue payable over the land and directed the plaintiffs to tender the court fee on the suit land 10 times of the land revenue payable on the same, and accordingly granted time for paying the deficit court fee. The Trial Court having noted the fact that the suit land was agricultural land, held that the court fee was payable as applicable in the case of agricultural land.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondentdefendant preferred Civil Revision before the High Court, which, by the impugned order dated 25.05.2017 set aside the order of the Trial Court and held that the court fee as per Section 7(v)(e) of the Act was payable. Hence, this appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the material on record.

6. The genesis of the controversy is with regard to the initial valuation of the suit land for the purpose of court fee, as noted in paragraph No.11 of the plaint which is extracted above. The plaintiffs-appellants herein assessed the land for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200 on which Rs.25/- court fee was paid. This was on the basis of Section 7(v)(c) of the Act as per the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. However, when the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. was filed by the respondent-defendant and the matter was taken up for re-consideration, the Trial Court by order dated 20.09.2016 took note of the fact that the plaintiff has stated that the suit land was agricultural land. Paragraph No.1 of the plaint which is extracted as under for immediate reference:

" 1. That one Natthi son of Sukh Lal son of Girdhar resident of Ferozepur Jhirka was owner in possession of agricultural land bearing rect.No.143 Killa No.19/3(2-8), 20(7- 9), 21(8-0), Rect. No.144 Killa No.5(2-18), 6(2-18), Rect.No.153 Killa No.1(6-9), 29(11- 7), measuring 45K. 17M. full share and 4 share in ½ share in Rect.No.143 Killa No.26(2-7), measuring 2K. 7M. and share comes to 1K. 3M and grand total measuring 47K. 7M. situated within the revenue estate of village Ferozepur Jhirka, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, Distt. Mewat. Copy of jamabandi for the year 2005-06, 2000-01, 1975-76, mutation No.3554 and certified copy of gift deed dated 28.10.1970 bearing vasika No.1557."

7. Accordingly, construing the said land to be agricultural land it directed that payment of court fee be as per Section 7(v)(a) of the Act. Not being satisfied with the said order, the defendant while assailing the said order before the High Court contended that it had constructed certain gair mumkin shops and gair mumkin mandir (temple), and therefore, the said land was not agricultural land. Accepting the said contention, the High Court has directed that the court fee has to be paid under Section 7(v)(e) of the Act.

8. We have perused the relevant provisions of Section 7 of the Act. The relevant provisions read as under:

"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 : xxx

for possession of land, houses and gardens.- (v) In suits

xxx

for a declaratory decree and consequntial relief.-(c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed.

xxx

for possession of land, houses and gardesn.- (v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens-according to the value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to be-

where the subject-matter is land, and- (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently settled-ten times the revenue so payable; xxx For houses and gardens. – (e) where the subject-matter is a house or garden-according to the market-value of the house or garden;"

9. Having regard to the valuation which has been made by the appellants-plaintiffs which was not in accordance with the relief as such sought for by the plaintiffs and having regard to the nature of the relief which was for possession of land, houses and gardens according to the value of the subject-matter is land, and -(a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently settled ten times the revenue so payable. The Trial Court held that ten times the revenues so payable would be the basis for the payment of court fee.

10. However, the High Court has construed the suit land as for houses and gardens in sub-clause (e) of clause (v) of Section 7 which reads as under:

"for houses and gardens.- (e) Where the subject-matter is a house or garden-according to the market-value of the house or garden"

11. We have considered the aforesaid provisions under Section 7 and we find that the High Court was not right in construing the suit schedule land as "houses and gardens". Instead, on a reading of the plaint, it is evident that the

suit land is "agricultural land" in nature. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The order of the Trial Court is restored. The appellants-plaintiffs shall tender the court fee in terms of the order of the Trial Court dated 20.09.2016.

12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.............................,J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

.............................,J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 24, 2024.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21500/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2017 in CR No.6908/2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)

DULI CHAND (D) THR HIS LRS. & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SHRI BANS GURU GADDI KABIR DHARAM DASS BANSAWALI KABIR Respondent(s)

(IA No. 35271/2024 - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT IA No. 76977/2017 - APPLICATION FOR PLACING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ON RECORD IA No. 35277/2024 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 76976/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 51877/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 35273/2024 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT)

Date : 24-09-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH

For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Anil Mittal, Adv.
	Mr. Shaurya Mittal, Adv.
	Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Abhijeet Varshney, Adv. Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shilpa G. Mittal, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order placed on the file.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(VIJAY KUMAR) (DIVYA BABBAR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)