What are essential ingredient necessary in order to constitute consequential relief?

Third question is in respect of consequential relief. In the Act, section 7(iv)(c) provides for payment of Ad Valorem Court Fee for a suit claiming a declaratory decree/order where consequential relief has prayed for. Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Murlidhar v. Banshidhar and others, MANU/UP/0029/1963 : AIR 1963 Allahabad 86 has laid down the meaning of expression "Consequential Relief as used in this section. It is as under:--

"In our opinion, the expression consequential relief "in section 7(iv)(c) means some relief which would follow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantive relief. A consideration of all the Cls. (1) to (f), sub-section (4) Court-Fees Act leads to the same conclusion".

This definition of the expression "consequential relief was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Krishna Chandraji v. Shyam Behari Lal, (s) MANU/UP/0060/1955 : AIR 1955 All 177 where an analysis of the definition the learned Judges found four essential ingredients to be necessary in order to constitute a consequential relief. Those ingredients were:

(I) That the relief should follow directly from the declaration given;

(II) that the valuation of the relief be not capable of being definitely ascertained;

(III) that the relief is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Act; and

(IV) that the relief cannot be claimed independently of a declaration as a substantial relief."

14. The true test to ascertain whether the consequential relief infact flows from the declaratory relief is as to whether the said consequential relief can be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantial relief or not. Every injunction in a suit for injunction would not flow from the declaration in a case where the plaintiff is in possession of the property in his own rights; comes before this Court and seeks declaration that the property belongs to him and the other party cannot interfere with his possession then it cannot be said that the plaintiff is required Ad Valorem Court Fees because the relief of injunction is a consequential relief. As observed above the relief of injunction if can independently be claimed then in every case it would not be a consequential relief. It is settled law that if a person is in settled possession he cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. Such a person if claims a declaration of his title and injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession then the relief of injunction is not a consequence of the declaration because even if the Court is of the opinion that the declaration cannot be made in favour of the plaintiff then too the Court will grant an injunction in favour of the person who is in settled possession. Such a person would be called upon to value both the reliefs separately and each of the relief would be independent of the other. In a suit of this nature the plaintiff is not seeking the relief of injunction as consequential relief but is entitled to claim the same because of his settled possession. In such a case section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act would be applicable for valuing the relief of injunction and Article 17 of Schedule II of the Act would provide the Court fees for the said declaration. In the matter of Sanik Nagar durga G.H. Samiti v. Indore City Improvement Trust, 1983 M.P. Weekly Note, Note No. 56, in almost similar situation where the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration and injunction to restrain the defendant from starting the construction over the suit land, this Court observed that in fact the plaintiff was claiming two distinct reliefs, one for declaration of the title and the other for preventive injunction. The relief of injunction in fact was not consequential to the relief of declaration because even without claiming the declaration relief, plaintiff could have brought the suit on the same pleadings seeking the relief for injunction only. These were two distinct and separate reliefs. The High Court further observed that the relief of injunction though related to question of plaintiff's title, was not consequential to the declaration.

15. In the instant case also the plaintiff has sought declaration of her title and has prayed for injunction. Each of the relief can be claimed separately. If it is found that the reliefs can be claimed separately then the relief of injunction would not be consequential reliefs to the relief of declaration. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

W.P. No. 4467 of 2014

Decided On: 20.03.2017

Gomatiprasad and Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anand Pathak, J.

Citation: AIR 2017 Madhya pradesh 125

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment on payment of court fees in suit for declaration that sale deed is null and void

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 non-binding. 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 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 underSection 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) ofSection 7.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010

Bench: R.V. Raveendran, R.M. Lodha

Citation:AIR 2010 SC 2807:(2010)12 SCC112

Print Page

What court fees will be required to be paid if non-executant is seeking declaration that sale deed is not binding on him?

The plaintiff who is a non-executant seeks to avoid

the sale deed and has sued for a declaration that it is not valid

and binding on him. Only a fixed court fee need be paid on the

amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on



Rupees One Thousand whichever is higher.   
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT:

                 MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

               4TH DAY OF JULY 2012

              WP(C).No. 19268 of 2010 

          USMAN KURIKKAL,
         Vs

          PARAPPUR ACHUTHAN NAIR,
         

Print Page