Declaration Alone Won’t Suffice When Possession Is Disputed: Delhi HC Rules Full Court Fees Payable in Suit Challenging Deed

“Without obtaining declaration as sought, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot seek injunction to restrain the respondents from using the subject property for ingress and egress.” With these words, the Delhi High Court on 18 September 2025, upheld a trial court's direction that the plaintiff must pay ad valorem court fees based on market value, and dismissed the challenge against the said order.

This judgment reiterates a significant legal distinction in civil litigation—the nature of the relief sought (declaration vs. cancellation vs. possession) and how it directly impacts the computation of court fees. When the plaintiff is not in possession and seeks consequential injunction based on ownership or title, declaration alone won’t suffice without proper valuation and full court fee.

“Court Fees Not a Formality – When You Seek to Disturb Possession, You Must Value Suit at Market Rate”

On 7 February 2024, the trial court had granted the petitioner 30 days to correct the defective valuation of her suit, holding that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act did not apply, and instead Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule must govern the computation of court fees. This order was challenged before the Delhi High Court, but the challenge has now been repelled and dismissed.

The Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled that the reliefs of perpetual and mandatory injunction were not independent, but rather consequential to a declaration of nullity regarding clauses in two sale deeds, and must be valued accordingly.

The Court observed: “The reliefs of injunction sought in the suit do not automatically flow out of the relief of declaration qua nullity of the Rectification Deed and the subject clause of the Sale Deed under challenge.”

Disputed Use of Driveway Leads to Legal Clash Over Court Fees

The case arose from a real estate dispute involving a portion of residential property situated at Kilokari, New Delhi. Bhanu Chaudhary, the plaintiff, purchased a 350 sq. yard portion of the property via a sale deed dated 24 June 2021. However, despite the sale, previous purchasers (respondents no. 3–6) allegedly continued to use part of her property—marked in yellow on the site plan—for ingress and egress to their flats.

The plaintiff alleged that after her purchase, the prior owners—respondents no.1 and 2—fraudulently inserted Clause 22 into a subsequent Sale Deed dated 11 October 2021, authorizing continued use of this area by another buyer. A Rectification Deed was also executed on the same date to mirror similar access rights in a previous sale deed.

The plaintiff sought:

• Declaration that Clause 22 and the rectification deed are null and void ab initio
• Injunctions restraining respondents from entering or using the disputed portion
• Mandatory injunction stopping interference with construction

She valued each declaration at ₹200 and paid fixed court fees under Section 7(iv)(c), claiming that injunctions were not consequential to the declarations.

When Reliefs Are Interlinked, Court Fees Cannot Be Arbitrary

The Delhi High Court rejected this submission and upheld the trial court's reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (2010), which distinguishes between executants and non-executants seeking annulment of deeds.

In Suhrid Singh, the Supreme Court held: “Where the executant of a deed wants to get it annulled, he has to seek cancellation. But if a non-executant wants annulment, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is void, and court fees differ based on possession.”

In this case, since the plaintiff was not in possession of the portion of land she sought to restrain the respondents from using—and the injunctions were based on her ownership—it was ruled that the suit must be valued at market rate, and ad valorem court fees must be paid.

Justice Girish Kathpalia held:

“In view of Rule 7 of Chapter III, Part C, Volume I, Delhi High Court Rules, valuation of the suit shall be at the market value of the subject property as on the date of institution of the suit.”

Injunctions Were Dependent, Not Standalone

The Court noted that the reliefs of injunction did not have independent existence. They depended on the outcome of the declaration regarding the invalidity of Clause 22 and the rectification deed.

The Court observed: “Without obtaining declaration as sought, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot seek injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from using the subject property.”

Thus, the plea that the injunctions were standalone and not "consequential" was categorically rejected. The attempt to pay only nominal court fees of ₹20 per relief was held legally untenable.

“No Distinction Between Declaration of Clause and Deed – Whole Instrument Comes Into Question”

Significantly, the Court rejected the argument that the challenge was only to Clause 22 and not the entire deed. The Judge clarified:

“There is no distinction between the relief qua declaration of a particular clause of the Deed and qua the entire instrument, because the declaration of nullity of clause 22 of the Sale Deed, if allowed, would certainly have a bearing on the entire Sale Deed.”

The Delhi High Court has once again made it clear that plaintiffs cannot artificially undervalue suits to avoid paying proper court fees when they seek serious and impactful reliefs—especially those that disrupt possession or interfere with vested property rights.

The Court dismissed the petition and directed that the trial court’s order stands. The plaintiff must now correct the valuation based on market value and pay appropriate court fees if she wishes to continue prosecuting her suit.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2025