Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh, [(2010) 12 SCC 112]: Supreme Court of India
Relief of executant and non-executant against a deed and payment of amount of court fee
7. Where the executant of a deed wants
it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a
non-executant 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 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 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 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 the Second Schedule of the Act. But if B, a non-executant, 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 Act.