Mukesh Devi v. Lakhwinder and Others
Court fee – Valuation – Suit challenging a deed executed by another
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court judgment extract (headings marked '(O&M)'; document attested 27.05.2025; court, case number and bench name not stated) addressing the court-fee/valuation objection in a suit where plaintiffs, not being executants of the challenged deed, seek its invalidation. Relies on Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564 (cancellation vs declaration; fixed fee Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) Second Schedule for non-executant in possession; ad valorem fee under Section 7(iv)(c) where consequential possession sought). Counsel noted: Ravi Dutt Sharma. Outcome/disposition not present in the extract.
What did the court decide?
This court records that the question of valuation/court fee arising from the plaintiffs (admittedly non-executants) challenging a deed they did not execute stands answered by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, whose ruling the court reproduces in extenso (executant sues for cancellation paying ad valorem fee; non-executant in possession sues for declaration paying fixed fee under Article 17(iii); non-executant out of possession seeking declaration plus consequential possession pays ad valorem fee under Section 7(iv)(c)). The extract is truncated and does not contain this court's final operative direction on fee.