Court fee on sale deed challenge: substantive cancellation relief, not mere declaration, required ad valorem valuation.

A suit challenging sale deeds on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, with a consequential injunction, was held to attract ad valorem court fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870. The Court examined the real nature of the plaint rather than its drafting and found that cancellation or setting aside of the sale deeds was the substantive relief, not a merely declaratory claim with ancillary relief. Consequential relief under section 7(iv)(c) was treated as only an incidental remedy flowing from a declaration. On the pleadings, the plaintiff was therefore liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit seeking setting aside of sale deeds on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, coupled with consequential injunction, attracts ad valorem court fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870.

Analysis: The Court held that the real nature of the suit must be gathered from the plaint and not from its drafting. Where the main relief is cancellation or setting aside of the sale deeds and the declaration is not the substantive relief, the case does not fall within the category of a merely declaratory suit with ancillary consequential relief. The Court applied the settled principle that consequential relief under section 7(iv)(c) means only an ancillary relief flowing from the declaration, not a substantive relief capable of independent valuation. On the facts pleaded, the challenge to the sale deeds and the connected injunction constituted substantive relief, so ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration was payable.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fee, and the order directing payment of such fee was upheld.

---