For every suit filed before the court, the plaintiff has to pay a certain court fee. Many a times, it has been observed that in declaration suits, the plaintiff formulates the relief sought by him in the form of declaration simpliciter, whereas his relief is actually for declaration and a consequential relief flowing from such declaration, in order to avoid paying higher court fees. To clear the ambiguity surrounding the issue, WITNESS Bureau presents the position on payment of court fee and its avoidance in the following significant judgements:

• Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in a suit to obtain declaratory decree, where no consequential relief is prayed, subclause (iii) of Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (‘the Act’), will be applicable. In the same case, the court observed that the plaintiff could not claim possession unless the said deed was cancelled by a decree of the court. To such a suit, the only Article held to be applicable was Article 1, Schedule I of the Act.
• The Supreme Court while upholding the right of the plaintiff to value the suit for accounts according to his own estimate held that he has not been given the absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever in such relief. However, in a case, the Delhi High Court while analysing the above-mentioned judgement observed that the case pertained to limited pecuniary jurisdiction and in such cases, the defendant could object, as arbitrary under-valuation could result in rejection of the plaint.
• In an important judgement, the Delhi High Court while reviewing various Apex Court decisions put before it by the parties held that for the purpose of court fees the law should be clear as under:-
• Where the question of court fee is linked with jurisdiction, a defendant has a right to raise objection and the court should decide it as a preliminary issue.
• However, in those cases where the suit is filed in a court of unlimited jurisdiction, the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff or payment of amount of court fee on relief claimed in plaint or memorandum of appeal should be taken as correct.
• This does not preclude the court even in suits filed in courts of unlimited jurisdiction from examining, if the valuation, on averments in plaint, is arbitrary.
• The Delhi High Court held that where the sale deed, on the very face of it, had been duly executed and registered and title and possession had passed to the defendant by virtue of the sale deed, the suit is for declaration with consequential relief and not that of a plain declaration. The suit property was valued at Rs. 85 lakh and the plaintiff was directed to pay court fee on this amount.
• The Chennai High Court held that the word “cancellation” implies that the persons suing should be a party to the document. Strangers are not bound by the documents and are not obliged to sue for cancellation. In the same case, when the plaintiff attacked the sale deed as having been obtained from him under fraud and mis-representation, the court held that the plaintiff cannot seek for any further relief without setting aside the sale deed. The plaintiff, who is a party to the document himself, seeks to get rid of the documents executed by him and hence, court fee was to be paid under section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.