Introduction

This civil appeal arose from a long-standing property dispute linked to improper valuation of the suit and non-payment of appropriate court fees. The respondent, Raj Pal Sharma, filed a suit challenging a gift deed and sale deed relating to family property. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for deficient court fees. The Delhi High Court, however, allowed amendment and revived the suit under its supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227 of the Constitution).

The matter came before the Supreme Court to decide whether the High Court was justified in interfering and whether proper valuation and court fee are mandatory in declaratory-cum-cancellation suits.

Facts of the Case

1. Original Ownership: G.D. Mal was the owner of the suit property. He bequeathed it to his wife, Pritam Devi, through a will.

2. Transfer of Property: In 2010, Pritam Devi gifted the property to her grandsons, who in 2011 sold it to the appellants (B.P. Naagar & Ors.) for ₹1 crore.

3. Filing of Suit: G.D. Mal’s son, Raj Pal Sharma (respondent), filed a suit seeking:

   • Cancellation of gift and sale deeds.

   • Injunctions restraining eviction.

4. Trial Court: Rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for improper valuation and non-payment of ad valorem court fee.

5. High Court: Overruled the Trial Court under Article 227, holding valuation could be determined at trial, and allowed plaint amendment.

6. Appeal: The appellants challenged the High Court’s interference before the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of ad valorem court fee.

2. Whether the High Court could invoke Article 227 jurisdiction to revive the plaint, instead of the respondent availing appeal under Section 96 CPC.

3. Whether a plaintiff who is not a party to a deed must pay ad valorem court fee when seeking cancellation of such deed.

4. Whether the High Court was correct in allowing amendment without addressing valuation and jurisdictional consequences.

Judgment

1. Proper Valuation is Mandatory:
   The Supreme Court reiterated that where the plaintiff himself values the suit at ₹1 crore and seeks cancellation (not mere declaration), ad valorem court fee is mandatory under the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Suits Valuation Act, 1887.

2. High Court Overreach:
   The SC held that once a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the remedy lies in a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, not a supervisory writ under Article 227.

3. Trial Court’s View was Legally Sound:
   The Trial Court correctly applied precedents like Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (AIR 1958 SC 245) and Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC 112.

4. High Court’s Order Set Aside:
   The SC set aside the Delhi High Court’s order, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration of valuation, court fee, and maintainability within six months.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court emphasized that proper valuation and payment of ad valorem court fee are essential for maintainability of suits involving cancellation of documents. It further clarified that once a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only remedy is a regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC, not a constitutional writ under Article 227.

This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural discipline regarding court fees and valuation cannot be bypassed and must be judicially addressed before proceeding with property suits.