Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court

"The question of payment of court fee, whether ad valorem or fixed court fee, could be addressed and considered only upon establishment of such germane facts upon leading of evidence in the suit." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a trial court must defer the determination of whether a plaintiff is required to pay ad-valorem court fee to the stage of evidence when the issue of possession is contested.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that where a plaintiff claims joint possession of a suit property, the plaint cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC based merely on a contest regarding the nature of the court fee.

Determining The Nature Of The Plaint

The appellants, who were the original plaintiffs, sought a declaration that they were co-owners of the suit property and that a transfer deed in favour of defendant No. 1 was fraudulent and void. They further prayed for separate possession and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that since the plaintiffs were not in possession, they were legally mandated to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the property.

Trial Court Refused Rejection

The Trial Court dismissed the application, noting that while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint, the court must confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint itself. Relying on the decision in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Others, the trial court observed that since the plaintiffs were not parties to the impugned transfer deed, they were not liable to pay ad-valorem court fee at the initial stage.

High Court's Contrary Findings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana subsequently allowed a revision petition against the trial court's order. The High Court observed that because the plaintiffs sought a decree for "separate possession," it was a clear admission that they were currently out of possession. Consequently, the High Court directed the plaintiffs to deposit ad-valorem court fee within two weeks, failing which the plaint would stand rejected.

Supreme Court Examines Plaint Averments

The Supreme Court emphasised that the principle governing Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC requires the court to look into the averments of the plaint in their entirety. The bench pointed out that paragraph 4 of the plaint contained an unequivocal plea that the plaintiffs and defendants had resided together in the suit property and had invested in its maintenance, thereby asserting a claim of joint possession.

Court Rejects Threshold Rejection

The Supreme Court noted that the entire suit was predicated on the claim of joint possession, which had been explicitly pleaded by the plaintiffs. Therefore, there existed no prima facie ground to reject the plaint at the threshold stage. The court held that the High Court erred in prematurely deciding the issue of court fee by misconstruing the nature of the prayers made in the suit.

Distinction Between Executants And Non-Executants

The bench reaffirmed the legal position established in Suhrid Singh regarding the payment of court fees. The Court clarified that where a non-executant challenges a deed, they are generally required to pay a fixed court fee under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act. However, if the non-executant is not in possession and seeks the consequential relief of possession along with a declaration, the court fee is then computable under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.

"The question of payment of court fee will have to be looked into in segregation, for, the same would depend upon not only the possession aspect or the prayer in that regard, but also the aspects relating to the sale deed claimed to have been executed and the other facts relevant thereto."

Evidence Determines Fee Liability

The Supreme Court underscored that the question of whether ad-valorem or fixed court fee is payable in the present case involves complex factual inquiries. The bench reasoned that this determination depends not only on the prayer for possession but also on the validity of the transfer deed and the nature of the plaintiffs' possession. These are substantive issues that must be threshed out through the leading of evidence during the trial.

Final Order Set Aside

Concluding the matter, the Court set aside the High Court's order and upheld the Trial Court's decision to refuse the rejection of the plaint. The Supreme Court modified the directive, stating that the issue of court fee shall be considered and decided only after evidence has been led by the parties. This ensures that the plaintiffs are not non-suited on technical grounds before the merits of their possession claim are established in court.

Date of Decision: 21 August 2026